Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

UNIVERSITY OF THE AIR

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: I beg to move,
That this House, being acutely aware of the need for furthering education and of the need to give the fullest possible assistance to the teacher in the classroom and bearing in mind that an educational television and radio service would assist in mitigating the continuing teacher shortage, calls on Her Majesty's Government to encourage the establishment of a University of the Air in television and sound radio and, in the field of formal education of both children and adults, to sponsor a suitable television and radio service.
Since Dame Fortune smiled on me a few weeks ago when my name came first in the Ballot, she must have had a quiet smile to herself in the interval while I have been ploughing through the mass of material that has been written concerning a university of the air. That being so, it is not my intention to go into great detail this morning—I do not think I am technically equipped to do so—but I hope to show that there is a need for such a university of the air, and an educational radio and television service.
The general principles of the Motion will, I imagine, appeal to all but the most obscurantist. In such a climate of opinion I should like to keep my remarks on a non-controversial plane, except perhaps to say that a great deal of the urgency of the problem springs from a long-continued failure to increase the teaching force, to reduce the numbers of pupils in classes and to extend university accommodation.
Having said that, I should not like it to be thought that a university of the air and an educational television and radio service is intended merely as a counterfeit for the real thing, a stop-gap solution for a temporarily disordered state of affairs, to be abandoned as soon as the real thing becomes available. Even in the best possible educational set-up

that we can envisage at present, an integral part will be the harnessing to the service of the nation the immense possibilities that lie in radio and television.
One of the clamant needs of our time is for a rapid increase in educational facilities. In the scientific and technological age into which we are entering, it is obvious, from yesterday's debate and from debates which have taken place in the House previously, how absolutely necessary it is to raise the level of understanding of the people who have to live with and in a technological society. It is right in this connection that we should think primarily in terms of increasing the flow of teachers, and not the least of the merits of this proposal is the fact that it will go a long way towards making such provision. We shall have to get rid of the vicious spiral that starts with overcrowded classes and insufficient teachers, leading in turn to a shocking waste of talent and a further drying up of the pool from which skilled teachers would normally be drawn, leading to a situation, if I may paraphrase, of too many pupils chasing too few teachers.
By the very nature of the case, there can be no overnight improvement in the situation. There can be no spectacular increase in the provision of highly-skilled men and women of all callings which the country so sorely needs. No flourishing of a Chancellor's wand can obliterate the necessity for the arduous and prolonged training which is an essential ingredient of all worth while study. Here, if ever, time is of the essence.
Nevertheless, there lies to hand a means of accelerating the process. There are in this country many thousands of adults repining their lost opportunities and possibly harbouring righteous resentment against the educational system that denied them the opportunity to fulfil the best in them, a system that rendered their future prospects an irresponsible gamble. A teacher's illness, an appendectomy, or even a random pregnancy has blasted many a hope, but it must be admitted that under ideal staffing conditions a pupil has often contributed to his own downfall. There are few of us here who, if we searched our consciences carefully, would not be aware of the years that the locusts have eaten, especially those vital years of early adolescence when a dogged resistance to learning or simple indolence


frustrated the most earnest endeavours of even the best teachers.
Let us confess it—it does, at the secondary stage, take a good deal of moral fibre or an exceptionally heavy-handed parent to induce the normal pupil to bend his mind to ridiculous, if necessary, distinctions in grammatical analysis or to explore with zest the niceties of the binomial theorem. Common sense, the present exigencies of our situation, and a recognition of the humane principle, already enshrined in the British principles of justice, that every man or woman is entitled to a second chance, dictates the necessity for some method of providing education at all levels—an education which should be not only rewarding in its own right but purposive and an active spur to right ambition.
It seems to me that, to meet these needs on the desired scale, radio and television come miraculously to hand, so that it would seem almost that, like Voltaire's God, if they did not exist they would have to be invented. Short of actual instruction by a teacher or lecturer in the classroom—for most of the people we have in mind an unattainable luxury—there is no method better calculated to provide instruction. One does not reach my age and remain a starry-eyed idealist. I am not suggesting that radio and T.V. education will effect a magic, overnight, transformation in the British way of life. There are many, I know, who are educationally irredeemable, and these are confined to no particular class of society. But there are equally many others, I am convinced, who would profit immensely from a systematic and purposeful course of education which would be beneficial to themselves and the nation.
There are, it seems to me, four categories who would benefit enormously from such a system. We have, for example, an immediate need of skilled men and women of all professions. If my assumptions are correct—and the whole educational world bears me out in them—there are now in this country many thousands of people who are working well below their intellectual capacity in jobs which, however useful they may be to the national economy, are nevertheless wasteful of talent since they do not exploit to the full the potentialities of those who perform them.
Whether they are in these jobs through poverty, indolence or a youthful zest for life that made them follow the Mersey beat or the Charleston rather than the scholastic beat, I care not. There are, at any rate, a great many who are capable of and for the most part prepared to take advantage of any belated opportunity which we may provide them in bettering their lot. I speak more in sorrow than from a sense of national pride when I mention as a particularly shocking waste of talent the appalling grammar school rat-race that disfigures the educational scene in so many English counties.
It is of no consequence now how they arrived at their present situation. There they are, having reached man's estate, sobered by the stern realities of life, fired now by a healthy ambition, not the less compelling from a comparison of their present situation with what might have been, inspired at times with a wistful desire to turn the clock back. It may be contended that their needs are already met by night schools but, while by no means detracting from these excellent institutions which have played so notable a part in the educational life of the nation, I have to say that they fail for the most part to meet the needs of the people whom I have in mind. It is not to impugn a man's ambition that he should prefer to relax at home or in the "local" after a hard day's work rather than snatch a hasty tea and brave the horrors of a winter's night to spend two hours in a severely functional classroom.
It is important to realise that we need his brains as much as he needs fulfilment, and we must be content, to some extent, to pander to him. We cannot make the intellectual process easier. All the television in the world will not eradicate the hard darg of mastering the marginal theory in economics or render immediately clear the intricacies of the differential calculus. But we can perform two functions for him that might render his task easier. We can stimulate his interest and his ambition and provide him painlessly with the means to satisfy them.
In the liberal arts particularly—and for my immediate purpose I define these as studies requiring a minimum of apparatus and practical experiment—the


prospects are limitless. I am assured that on the technological side there is vast scope for television instruction also. Many hon. Members will know that in various parts of the country many experiments have been carried out which would seem to bear out what I have said.
For this class of person the programme of instruction must be both exacting and purposive. Standards must be maintained and the student must feel himself to be going somewhere. I will come later to the needs of the dilettante. At present I am considering solely the requirements of those who are prepared for the hard discipline of academic study. It is in their interest, as much as that of the nation, that any course of study should be of high standard and not merely a watered down version of the real thing.
To this end it is necessary that all the ancillary apparatus of a university should be provided. Television instruction itself is not enough. Some form of personal supervision is necessary throughout. There must be specially prepared text books. There will have to be regular meetings between students and tutor, and correspondence courses. Partly to finance such concomitants of a genuine course such as this, and partly to discourage misplaced zeal, I would think it reasonable that for those who wish to take full advantage of it some form of fees should be imposed and there should be some grant system for those who cannot afford it. The series would be open to all who cared to view or to listen but the complete range of the course opened only to those who were prepared to back their judgment of themselves with something more solid than unfulfilled aspirations.
Another extremely important class of students whose needs can be catered for in this way are those engaged in industry and commerce. In both these fields there is great rapidity of change and a constant introduction of new techniques. The future of Britain is largely bound up with our capacity for adapting ourselves quickly to a swiftly changing world. Enlightened management can do much about the provision of training, but not all management is enlightened or financially capable of providing training schemes for able and ambitious employees.
I should think that it would be unnecessary to dilate at any length on the vital necessity of both sides of industry and commerce coming to a swift appreciation of the need to modernise Britain. Whatever controversy may rage round the respective responsibilities of employers or unions for in our present state of affairs, there is no doubt in all our minds that a realisation of the potentialities of modern industrial and commercial techniques is an essential preliminary to acquiring them. In this field, as in the other, television and radio can be important as stimulator and as instructor.
To have this great medium of national inspiration to hand and yet fail to use it would be a grave dereliction of duty. As to the practical details of such a course or series of courses, here is a magnificent opportunity for both management and unions to delight in a common endeavour. To raise the technological and technical standards of the nation is their responsibility. Just as the universities and other organisations for higher study seem to be the natural institutions to provide a course of university study, so, I believe, an important part can be played by both sides of industry in evolving and guiding a programme of learning suitable to the needs of our time.
So far, I have been dealing with those aspects of radio and television which could provide a course of study leading to some practical end, but, of course, there is a vast army of people in Britain acutely conscious of their educational shortcomings. Most of them are not necessarily willing to undergo an exacting course of study. As industrial techniques are perfected and more leisure time is available, it becomes more than ever necessary to banish the intellectual poverty in which so many live.
The scope for popularisation is infinite. Much of the success of the paper-back revolution is due to this. On television, we have already had exciting testimony to the fact that there is a public for education in such programmes as Mr. A. J. P. Taylor's lecture series and the brilliant success achieved some years ago by Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Mr. Glyn Daniels in giving a new look to Neolithic man. Music, art, history, languages, technology, archaeology—there is no limit to the range of subjects which, in the hands of the skilled expositor, can be


used to awaken the interest and catch the imagination of the viewer. Every teacher knows that the battle is already won when interest is captured. The process from then on is self-perpetuating. The interest grows from what it feeds on.
Paradoxically, the logical end of such a process may be to render television less and less necessary. For the prime instrument of education and intellectual entertainment is, in my opinion, the book. The age of leisure which we see on the horizon makes it more than ever important that every man should have an intellectual hobby, at whatever level he cares to pursue it. Radio and television, wonderful instruments as they are, can be only supplementary to the book, yet—I say this, perhaps, more than in sorrow than in anything else as a former president of the Scottish Library Association—it could happen that television outdated the printed word for many purposes.
At this stage of the discussion, I have been content merely to outline the broad principles on which a full television educational programme might be based. There has already been some discussion in the Press about the practical details of such a proposal, with Sir John Wolfenden rightly pointing out that, so far, our use of television has been negligible. The word "educational" as used here means the deliberate use of television for instructional purposes, in other words, direct teaching, and it is to be distinguished from "educative" which may be used to characterise a programme which, to some degree or other, has some educational value. Researches so far seem to indicate a crying need for a strictly educational programme. If this need exists, as I think that it does, we lamentably fail in our duty if we do not quickly meet it.
Undoubtedly, there are great problems to be solved. It would be an immense operation. One question is: should there be an overall educational broadcasting authority? In my view, if we are to have an educational television service, it ought to be in the hands of the educationists. The broadcasting authorities have, without doubt, done excellent work, but they are in some respects biased neutrals in this matter. They have been using education for television. I should like to see television used for

education. Should the scheme be operated on the basis of local stations staffed by teachers trained in T.V. disciplines, or should local stations be made available to local institutes of higher learning to provide programmes and all the supplementary aids suitable to their own curricula?
This is where Her Majesty's Government must play a most important part. They must decide, first, whether or not this means of educating the great mass of the people shall go on the air and, second, if so determined—to use the words of a learned judge some years ago—having willed the end, they must determine the means. However, at this stage it is not necessary, I think, to examine details of this nature, important though they be. It is immediately necessary for hon. Members to give earnest consideration to the terms of the Motion, asking themselves whether they are prepared to incur the responsibility of denying to great masses of their fellow countrymen the educational benefits which undoubtedly lie within the scope of our radio and television services.
When I was a member of Glasgow Corporation, I was chairman of the schools sub-committee, the policy-making body, and also chairman of the general finance committee. We had a very astute and gifted director of education who quickly took advantage of the coincidence that caused me to wear two hats, and the closed circuit television service which we are pioneering in Glasgow is now going ahead, starting August 1965. However, one of the troubles we ran up against was that we could not get any definite advice. We received advice from many knowledgeable people, but the advice from different sources did not always tally. Inevitably, we were put in the position of having to take the advice of the people selling equipment. If such a scheme as I propose is adopted by the Government, they must apply their mind immediately to setting up some central body which would co-ordinate advice and information based on experience and experiment so far.
Our educational system is at present in disarray and requires fundamental rethinking. But the pace of advance in the rest of the world will not conveniently halt while Britain slowly repairs her education fabric. I have no doubt, and I am sure that hon. Members will have


none, that, both in the short term and in the long term, educational television and radio, with a university of the air, will play a great part in the future education service of the country. Such a scheme would have the outstanding merit, in our present situation, of being able to produce, within three or four years after its commencement, an appreciable contribution to the professional and technical life of the nation.

11.29 a.m.

Mr. William Hannan: It is fitting that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), who is my next-door neighbour, should be fortunate in the Ballot. By a strange coincidence, it follows the speech which the Prime Minister made in Glasgow in September, 1963, when there occurred the first public mention of this great venture.
Coming from Glasgow, we have examples to put to the House and to talk about, not in any narrow nationalist sense but as a contribution to overall knowledge and, we hope, as assistance to the Government in the study which they are conducting. It means a plan for education through broadcasting, television, correspondence courses and what is known as face-to-face teaching. The remarks by my right hon. Friend gave great emphasis to such development and encouragement to the many embryo and pilot schemes already springing up in various parts of the country. If we can manage to get such a plan going, bringing it from the sphere of the few to some practical examples, we shall have taken a great step forward towards realisation of the plan. It would give Britain the opportunity to forge ahead and outpace the world in this field. We have many people, as my hon. Friend has said—we congratulate him on his choice of subject and on giving us the opportunity to talk about it—with capacity to benefit from advanced education but they do not at the moment receive it, not because they have not the potential but because the opportunities do not exist.
During the election the issue seemed clear. The Labour Party was committed to the principle of a separate educational television service. The Opposition—like my hon. Friends, I do not want to be controversial—were committed to the

establishment of a second commercial network to offset B.B.C.2, which in effect would rule out the possibility of a national educational television station until 1970.
The Government are now taking steps to meet the pledge made during the election. I welcome very much the change of office that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Jennie Lee) has recently undergone in that she has now been entrusted with the exciting task of working out a policy for educational television in consultation with the schools and universities. I am also glad to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, is also to assist in this work. She showed a deep interest when recently in private conversation I told her to expect comprehensive proposals made by the University of Strathclyde in this connection. It adds to the coincidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn should be fortunate in the Ballot some weeks before those proposals are firmly made.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) has suggested that there should be a series of local stations but not necessarily a national broadcasting station for education. The answer to that is that one national educational broadcasting service is better than none. It could cover the whole country in a way that local stations, unevenly distributed and with uneven resources, could not do. Like my hon. Friend, I think that a coherent national policy is now needed urgently to co-ordinate and direct the growing number of efforts. There is Queen's University in Northern Ireland. There is the proposed set-up in the northeast of England. There is the example in Glasgow, where 300 schools will be linked by an internal circuit with a receiving point so that the programme from a central studio can be relayed to them or they can participate in the educational programmes of the B.B.C. and I.T.A.
I permit myself only one comment on the Independent Television booklet entitled "Educational Television: Some Suggestions for the Fourth Service." I commend to my hon. Friends who have the responsibility for looking into this the comments in the New Statesman about this pamphlet on 15th February, 1961. It said:
The proposals"—


that is, of the I.T.A. booklet—
are not so altruistic as they appear. It is part of the continuing campaign of the commercial lobby.
Later it went on:
Education is a respectable way to camouflage the private purposes of the pressure group.
My hon. Friend has referred to the problem of finding more teachers to meet, for example, the raising of the school leaving age and the oversized classes. In Scotland we have recently had the Brunton Report, which points out that if we are to expand vocational education we shall need a new type of teacher, some of them coming from industrial sources. The problem broadly divides itself into two aspects. There is, first, the justification for education by television. This will be the responsibility of the education authorities. There is also the aspect of dissemination, the means by which education is to be transmitted. This is, of course, the problem for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. However, if any other hon. Friends of mine desire evidence about the appetite for education, reference can be made to The Guardian of 10th September, 1963, just after my right hon. Friend's speech in Glasgow. The Guardian said:
There is no doubt that the public demand exists. Last year almost 2 million people were engaged in some kind of further education activity and the number is rising sharply. Authorities estimate, moreover, that expanded facilities would be utilised eagerly.
I want to see a national educational television authority established to control the means of broadcasting and permission to broadcast. It should perform its function through a single central service with several regional stations, and each of these in turn could make its contribution to a networked programme and break off to conduct its own local requirements.
On the subject of teachers and of the problems associated with them, I would mention correspondence courses again. I understand that half the pupils in higher education in the U.S.S.R. are being taught through correspondence courses. I will relate to the House what the experience of the University of Strathclyde has been in this matter. It is a story which should be on the record not only by way of interest but by way of encouragement to other people.
In the University of Strathclyde under the direction of a brilliant young scientist, Dr. Alistair Ward, as television director, with the co-operation of the enthusiastic staff and the consent of Principal Curran, much that was formerly diffuse talk and uncertainty has been brought into the realms of immediate practicability in the space of nine months. There is no biological significance intended in that phrase. However, until recently it would not have seemed possible even to consider establishing a separate broadcast channel to be devoted entirely to education in Scotland. But the existence now of a first-class modern television studio with all appliances and equipment at Strathclyde which is up to broadcasting standards makers this a practical proposition.
I do not pretend to understand the technicalities, but the House may be interested to know that in the studio there are three studio vidicon cameras mounted on wheeled tripods and manually controlled for direction and focus; a fourth camera on a fixed site which can be manually rotated to receive pictures from a 35mm. slide projector and a 16 mm. moving film projector; three microphones of high quality; a record player; a tape recorder; a controlled monitor; a telerecorder unit; a video tape recorder and 13 viewing monitors distributed between three lecture theatres. Unpaid and unstinting professional advice on all technical matters was given to Dr. Ward and his group by experienced engineers of the B.B.C., Scottish Television and the I.T.A. who know the relative merits of equipment.
The studio is manned by qualified technical staff and, together with the studio for schools planned by Glasgow Corporation and the closed circuit plans of Glasgow University, it amply justifies the allocation of such a channel for Scotland. There is also a studio at the Royal College of Dramatic Art in Glasgow and I believe it is intended to put studios in two senior training colleges, one of them Jordanhill.
Technically, all that is now required is to link all these studios together with a transmitter on a suitable site. It could be used by the schools during the day and by a consortium of Scottish universities in the evening for extra-mural


broadcasts. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General recently about the prospects of such a proposition and suggested that a channel should be allocated to Scotland. My right hon. Friend replied:
 Naturally, I am very interested to hear about the experiments being carried out at Strathclyde. The suggestion for a separate educational broadcast channel in Scotland is, of course, one of many proposals for projects and experiments in educational broadcasting. These are all being taken into account in the Government's current study of the whole question of educational broadcasting …
All of us interested in this are delighted that that is so. We recognise that grave problems are involved in such a decision and that it will not be easy, in view of the other projects going on and the limited air space, to make an early decision. But in any case the University of Strathclyde has now submitted, within the last few days, an application for a licence to transmit an educational television service to a viewing public of some 2 million people by means of this transmitter costing about £30,000.
It can be sited on the roof of one of the university's main buildings in the heart of Glasgow. The proposed transmitter would have an effective radiated power in the range of 4 kW. to 40 kW., but it is interesting to note that almost one-third of Scotland's population would be situated within range. Another advantage is that the system used would make it possible to extend, as found practicable and necessary, to other parts of the country.
There is no desire to compete either with the B.B.C. or with the I.T.A. in the production and distribution of popular science or popular art programmes. That was one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn and I agree with him. What we need is an all-embracing and comprehensive service for education which will lead on with some purpose the students engaged in it. The university is sensible enough, despite its enthusiasm, to recognise that, at this time, the Postmaster-General may well be faced with many and possibly conflicting claims for educational television.
While there is everything to be said for the maximum of integration of educa-
tional television throughout the United Kingdom, consistent with the problems or peculiarities of particular areas or regions, nevertheless it is the university's case, which it wants to express strongly and fairly, that it is able, competent, and, as I know, enthusiastically willing to undertake the responsibility of operating such a transmitter in Scotland.
The university believes, however, that it would be quite wrong and against the national interest to urge the Postmaster-General to sanction the proliferation of independent local educational television. It wants to undertake the organisation—and this is within the bounds of early practicability—of programme production and tele-recording in whole or in part of Scottish educational television which is—or could become in future when ultimate decisions are made—integrated into a United Kingdom channel.
The university is poised ready to go and if such a channel could be allocated now, even for a pilot scheme for experience pending the bigger decisions, I am sure that the challenge would be willingly taken up by the university. I think that the university would want me to make it clear, however, if I have not already done so, that no conditions are being laid down, although only this week—indeed, it is doubtful if Ministers have had the proposals before them yet and this debate is coincidental—it submitted its formal application. The university wants to emphasise that this should not be interpreted as indicating an unwillingness on its part to accept alternative transmitters through the B.B.C. if need be.
What the university is anxious about is that the compilation, content and presentation of sustained courses should be done by educationists and that this should be started as soon as possible. It is the intention of the university to produce and transmit programmes of formal educational courses for the classes of students, mentioned by my hon. Friend, to assist them to study for examinations and to provide an opportunity for those who, because of illness or economic circumstances, missed the chance earlier in life but who still have a brain potential which is at the moment lost to the nation and which we can ill do without.
The university also wants to provide refresher courses for women who have left teaching to marry and to raise


families and who spend perhaps 10 to 15 years out of the profession. Special courses for them would enable them while still at home looking after the children to prepare for re-entering the profession at a later stage. We want to provide an opportunity for late developers. People able and keen to do so could benefit from T.V. lectures in trying to qualify for entrance to the normal universities, if I may call them such, to teacher-training colleges or to advanced institutions.
There is another aspect. The Government are opening retraining centres. There is need for men to change their jobs. But despite the progress that is being made in that work in Scotland, where there are 70,000 unemployed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said at a conference last week that, because of the shortage of skilled engineers, certain projects could not be got going. It is the intention that the lecturers' printed notes would be distributed to the students. These things are regarded as essential and would be prepared by highly qualified and experienced people. The students would return the completed exercises which would be marked by competent tutors, and records of the progress of students would be kept. Television itself plays a relatively minor part in the scheme. It is the vehicle which provides the human contact which is a necessary part of the process of education.
Postgraduate courses, too, could be provided, with the intention of giving those who had graduated some years ago and who might be out of touch with modern developments the opportunity to revise and to advance their knowledge and even go ahead to obtain higher qualifications. In Scotland we have a special recruitment scheme for teachers from among those who are graduates but who have gone into industry or commerce and who now feel that they want a change, who feel a certain inspiration of dedication. Through television, such people could be encouraged to return to education.
There is another aspect of the matter which interests and is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark. In addition to these proposals and independently of these considerations for what might be called further educa-

tion or postgraduate courses, the University of Strathclyde has offered, or is about to offer, its co-operation to the Scottish Education Department in compiling in its own television studios a series of lectures on mathematics and English. Transmission could be by the B.B.C. and the university is willing and able to start as soon as agreement can be reached.
The specific purpose would be to assist new students coming from O-levels to what in Scotland are called the H-levels to obtain entrance qualifications for universities or teacher training colleges. These lectures, too, would be supported by lecture notes and a tutorial system for marking and commenting on the work submitted by students each week. Success with this scheme would also mean the recruitment of teachers.
As a layman, I am not qualified in the techniques of teaching or administration and I can quite understand that there will be problems, that there will have to be negotiations and that there might be difficulties before consent can be given. There may be snags and unforeseen factors either overlooked or completely unknown to these enthusiasts of Strathclyde University. However, they are so anxious to go ahead that they are ready to do so from the beginning of the next scholastic year, in October.
I know that it is unusual to introduce such a subject in this way and I reiterate that it is sheer coincidence that these proposals should have come forward at the time of this debate. As I said earlier, I doubt whether the attention of Ministers has yet been officially drawn to these proposals, but this is a fine opportunity to provide information which can aid and contribute to the discussion.
I have a healthy respect for the experience, wisdom and guidance of the Scottish Education Department and I have only one thing to say to it. It is that I hope that it will not be afraid of innovation or doubtful about the term "university of the air". I recognise, as we all do, the complexity of the issues involved, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock will say, as I think she will, that the proposals of the University of Strathclyde in particular will be considered earnestly and with some urgency. We wish her well in the task which confronts her and it is our fervent hope that by the means of television we can


bring to the teaching resources of the country more people able to serve in that capacity.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have been able to speak in the House since my return. It will be within the recollection of some hon. Members that I do so after a period of enforced leave of absence due, of course, to a momentary aberration of the electorate in a certain part of London. In a sense, it is a pleasure, because this new maiden speech is an opportunity for me to speak on a subject in which, from both the educational and television point of view, I have taken some interest over a number of years. For that reason I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) on his excellent judgment in putting this Motion before the House for our consideration and for the way in which he presented it.
I do not want to strike too controversial a note, because I think that the Motion is worthy and was explained to the House with great ability, but I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Springburn and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) that the concept of the university of the air is an inflated concept. I propose to take some of the gas out of it, because unless we put this concept into its right proportion we are in great danger of giving hopes in certain quarters which any Government will have to disappoint as the years go by.
May I take an extreme attitude with which both the hon. Member for Springburn and the hon. Member for Maryhill would strongly and profoundly disagree? My source of extreme opinion is authoritative, although I do not share its view. It comes from the Pilkington Report on Broadcasting, 1960. Paragraph 1038 says:
Accordingly, we recommend against the introduction of a specialised service of educational broadcasting, whether provided by a new organisation, or by either of the existing broadcasting authorities.
Earlier in the Report, referring to the suggestion that there might be a special-

ised educational service, the Pilkington Committee said:
… from being unchallengeably a proper purpose, a necessary function of all broadcasting services, education would have become demonstrably the particular business of one service only".
That was the view of what would occur if there were just a specialised service. The Report went on:
As broadcasting is now organised, the responsibility of the two broadcasting organisations for fulfilling the educational purpose of broadcasting is unmistakable. But it would become at least a matter of doubt where, and in what degree, the responsibility lay if there were constituted an educational broadcasting authority. … If one service specialised in educational broadcasting, then the others would tend to specialise in "other' broadcasting. The present services would no longer develop as comprehensive services, and eventually the educative purpose also would cease to be regarded as a necessary function of all broadcasting.
A number of people put this opinion to the Pilkington Committee, and among the many who did was a very powerful body in the shape of the officials of the Ministry of Education in collaboration with Her Majesty's inspectors. To back up their views, the Pilkington Report quoted at some length from the Ministry of Education officials' evidence given to the Committee. The Ministry officials used these words:
A service which was labelled "educational' would tempt very few of those for whom broadcasting should have most to offer; and the non-educational service or services might see no point in aiming at a quality of programmes higher than the bare minimum which people are prepared to accept if they have no opportunity for acquiring a taste for something better.
The Pilkington Report, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the educational purpose of broadcasting is much more likely to be realised by a fourth comprehensive service.
This is a pretty powerful document, and I think that it will need some very strong arguments to overcome the views put forward in it. I should like to spend some time putting forward those strong arguments, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and that they wish to debate other subjects. I am very conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway), who recently wrote a most able pamphlet, "Education and Television", will


be able to deploy some useful arguments which would take issue with the Pilkington Report. However, I know from reading his pamphlet that he would not go as far as some people do in advocating a national education television service.
While rejecting Pilkington, therefore, I feel that we should do something about it. I do not think that education can be left to the development of another comprehensive broadcasting authority. As the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science appreciates, I am taking a rather middle course on this subject, and I should like to tell the House why.
There is a need for programmes which we call enrichment programmes which appear on both Independent Television and the B.B.C. I think that they are popular and well liked and that the House would ensure that both broadcasting authorities, even if we developed a specialised teaching service in television, put into their schedules such educative programmes; we would not let them off the hook. But I recognise, too, that there is a need in this country for what I might call teaching programmes as opposed to the broad background enriching programmes which both authorities do so well.
It seems that more and more people in the teaching profession in this country, and in other countries, too, recognise this need. I do not propose to weary the House with a list of the experiments which have taken place in Japan, the United States and France, but there is a considerable background of experience which, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of many other people, leads to the conclusion that television has a very useful and proper róle to play as an aid to the teacher and that it would be reactionary on our part to neglect the opportunities which it affords purely on account of cost.
There also seems to be—and I think that this is worth noting—quite a demand by the public to be taught by television. Hon. Members who have spoken have referred to the excellent scheme developed under the auspices of the University of Glasgow and the education authorities there. May I in turn draw attention—obviously this is not for chauvinist reasons—to something done in England under the auspices, not just of

a university, but of a university and a private commercial group.
I refer to the television correspondence course organised by Associated Television in conjunction with the University of Nottingham. A.T.V. covers an area of 6½ million people of whom 1,600 enrolled in the television correspondence course in basic economics. It was interesting to discover that 1,250 completed the 13-week course and had to look at television on Sunday morning at 12.15 p.m. when one might have thought that people would have been out of their houses as it was past opening time. This was followed by another session in front of the "box" on Mondays at 11.50 a.m.
A significant feature of the course is that they were entitled to two tutorials. They were not just supplied with a sheaf of notes, a lot of pictures on a "box" and left to get on with it. They were given the opportunity of meeting the people who organised the course. There were two tutorials thrown in, and then there was the final meeting, which was a residential for the weekend, at the end of the course which was attended by about 200 people.
The cost of those tutorials plus the correspondence which went with them was 10s., which was very reasonable. A wide range of people were brought into the scheme. I am told that the 1,250 encompassed the mayor of a town, a sewage worker and many trade unionists, because the trade unions in the area encouraged their members to take part in this course, which was to their credit. The courses could be said to have been a success in terms of audience appeal.
I understand that in a few weeks we shall know exactly how much these people learned because this is crucial to our knowledge and to the question of to what extent we proceed with experiments of this nature. I would add that the company itself absorbed what is called "below the line" costs—that is, the cost of studio facilities. It did not charge the university for them.
I think it is beyond doubt that there is a demand for this sort of thing. We know, whatever the outcome of the scheme to which I have just referred, that people can learn from television. The question is, how should we go on, assuming that Pilkington is wrong? I cannot see any Government Department


undertaking the vast capital expenditure involved in creating a separate national educational service. At the most conservative estimate, it would cost £20 million to set it up.
I look at this subject not as a broadcasting problem but as an educational problem. There are other priorities such as school buildings. We all recognise the valuable part which the public libraries can play in further education. There is many a public library without which few people could continue their education. In many parts of the country public libraries need more funds. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science would be the first to recognise how important a part they play in our educational structure.
There are other priorities clamouring for public money. There are these teaching machines which we hear so much about and which, I understand, play an increasingly valuable part in our schools. There is the use of tape recorders, not to mention radio itself. If we want to get into the brave new world—and undoubtedly we shall be there—there are the techniques pioneered in the Soviet Union whereby one learns in the course of one's sleep, a most delightful way of learning. These are not fanciful experiments.
In addition, if we are concerned with education in the widest sense—not just those at school but those who wish to continue their education after leaving school or institution of learning—there are buildings to which people can go to hear lectures. I have a sneaking feeling that psychologically people who want to continue their education find that one of the factors which encourages them to do so is that they are brought into contact with like-minded people. This has a helpful effect upon them, and there is a social side to it also. They like to get out of their natural framework, away from the environment in which they work or live, and to make a special journey. I realise that too many people have to make too long journeys. Leaving that aspect apart, however, they like to go to a particular institution with a lot of other people.
One notices that in entertainment. It was at one time suggested that because of the influence of television, the cinema would decline and would ultimately

vanish. This has not happened. We know, of course, that audiences have shrunk. When driving past a cinema on any night of the week, it is interesting to see the proportion of young people who go there. It is those same people who would describe television as the occupation and pastime of the middle-aged and elderly. Their own entertainment is not to be found in front of the "box" in the family circle. They have a sense of excitement and enjoyment in going to a picturedrome or theatre where they can enjoy this entertainment. In the same way, people are often attracted to go to an auditorium where they can be taught the things they want to learn.
For the reasons which I have given—the cost of establishing a national system of education by broadcasting and the other priorities which come clamouring at the Ministry of Education, as well as the new techniques which must also take their place—although I want to see the development of television in education, I realise that I must be a little more modest in my demands.
A start must obviously be made with a service which is regarded as part of our system of education and not as an extension of broadcasting. I come to the conclusion that we could do this in a sensible manner by considering our pattern of education. It is organised locally. The local education authorities do the job for the central Government. I have not put all the arguments which lead me to this conclusion, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North argues the case forcibly and I am delighted on this occasion, as on many others, to be in complete agreement with him. My hon. Friend has support for looking at the problem from a local point of view and seeing whether we can extend television broadcasting facilities in education. I quote, for example, from an article written by Mr. James Wykes, head of Educational Broadcasting, Associated Television, who comes to the view that television education should be basically local and regional to begin with. Having stated that, Mr. Wykes gives two main reasons for his view:
The two main reasons for this are that many of the courses required would be suitable only for towns and cities where industries of the same kind were carried on. For instance, one could hardly imagine the same industrial training courses suiting, say, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle.


The second point is concerned with the method of teaching which is used to supplement the television course. Whether it is correspondence or programmed learning by means of a textbook, the necessity for periodic meetings between teachers and learners seems absolutely essential. If the teachers are to be closely involved in the planning and conduct of courses, as they ought to be, it is difficult to see how this could be operated over a wide area in which teaching methods and emphasis on different aspects of subject matter may vary considerably.
These are wise words. Although their author is now employed by a broadcasting company, before he went to broadcasting he was a teacher.
To deal with the problem from a local angle would cut down the cost. If I may make a digression, it is about something that I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will mention to her colleagues at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I refer to local television broadcasting by means of a wired service, as is done in Glasgow and also through a narrow beam short-wave microwave relay.
When new towns are being planned, why not have them wired? If a start were to be made ab initio with a new town, it would not add any significant expense in the construction of the postal communication facilities. This has already been done to a large extent in the well-established postal service in the telecommunications organisation of Kingston upon Hull.
What I like particularly about the quotation which I have given is the reference to the training that is needed in some of our big cities. The hon. Member for Maryhill has mentioned that we are opening up the new industrial training centres. Yesterday, a Bill was presented by the Government to deal with both redundancy and payments to redundant workers. Matching that up with the previous Government's Industrial Training Act, one recognises that we have before us a huge job to ensure that people are not only provided for by means of redundancy payments, but are suitably trained to obtain a living and preserve their self-respect. It is in the great industrial conurbations that television along the lines which I have argued has a tremendous part to play. There are, as we know, those who wish to encourage this method of teaching for

which specialist programmes could be designed.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary and the Government will agree that the sources of finance should be drawn from the widest possible area. Obviously, the local education authorities would welcome the proposed system and they would need to put something into it. If many of the programmes were to be desgined for industrial training, I am sure that industry would pay a share of the burden, as would the universities. I see no reason why the television companies should not be able to play a worthy part. I am thinking not just of the B.B.C., but of the private independent companies.
To my mind, there would be no objection to showing advertisements in some of these programmes. We have, of course, a technical trade Press and there seems to be no reason why the television equivalent of a technical trade Press should not be shown in an educational television service, which would help to defray the increased cost.
I hope that other hon. Members who are interested in the subject, and particularly the hon. Member for Spring-burn, who introduced the Motion, will not think that I have been carping in my criticism of a university of the air. While deflating the concept, because it needs to be deflated, I have attempted, nevertheless, to take a constructive approach to the problem because, like the hon. Member, I believe that television has this useful part to play in the education and training of all our minds.

12.18 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Park: I should like, first, to express my interest in the remarks of the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). I happen to be one of his constituents, and therefore, it has been particularly interesting for me to hear what the hon. Member had to say. He presented his case in a lucid and persuasive manner, but there were some respects in which it was not sufficiently persuasive for me.
I join the hon. Member in complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) on giving us the opportunity of this debate today. My hon. Friend covered in a general way most of the major points


which are involved. His generalities were followed by an interesting and more specific type of treatment by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan).
However, I think there is perhaps some danger that, unless we are very careful, we shall confuse different and separate lines of development in educational television, and I think it is important that we should get these different lines of development quite clear in our minds.
First, there are programmes of general educational value, programmes which have been referred to this morning as enrichment programmes. These make up a normal and significant part of the general output of both the B.B.C. and of the commercial channels. I shall say little about them except that I believe that enrichment programmes such as "Panorama" and "World in Action" play a valuable part in disseminating amongst our citizens an interest in and an awareness of the events of the world. In doing so they provide a vital function in the democratic society, because such a society, if it is to be effective, depends on an informed electorate, and in these days the medium of television is one of the most powerful and significant weapons in the armoury of mass communication. The standard of enrichment programmes reaches a level of which those responsible for them can truly be proud. They have improved; they are improving; and I believe that these programmes will continue to improve still more as more experience is gained.
There is a second type of television programme of which little mention has been made this morning. These are the special programmes aimed at selected audiences, and, of course, the schools television service falls within this category. The B.B.C., at the end of last year, was providing 36 programmes a week, including repeat broadcasts, and the I.T.A. was providing 17 programmes a week. Schools television got off to a slow start in this country, and even today only 10 per cent. of the primary schools in England and Wales, 20 per cent. of the technical schools, and less than half the secondary schools of all types are registered viewers.
Educational television never can—nor is it designed to—replace the schoolteacher, but at a time when there is a grave teacher shortage and many overcrowded classes it is a little surprising that more education authorities and more teachers have not recognised the crucial rôle which television can play as a teaching aid, especially in those schools which lack the equipment or the demonstrative techniques and devices of which television can make use.
We need to increase the number of television sets in the schools of this country, and I hope that the hon. Lady who will be replying to this debate will be able to tell us of ways and means which her Department is adopting by which the number of schools television sets can be increased. We know that there are difficulties. We know there is the problem of fitting schools television programmes into the school timetable; we know that some teachers find it more difficult to link up the substance of a television programme with their teaching work than other teachers; we know that some local authorities are less enthusiastic than are others about the installation of television sets. However, these difficulties surely can be overcome, and must be if the real potential of television as an aid to school education is to be realised, and there is a need, I believe, both in school television and, for that matter, in other forms of television for the greatest possible co-operation, and co-ordination of effort, between the teachers in the classrooms, the local education authorities, the Department of Education and Science, and the people responsible for the presentation of the television broadcasts.
I pass now from schools television to a third aspect of educational television. It is one which has already been the subject of quite considerable comment this morning, namely, television for adults. It is around this form of television that I wish to focus most of my remarks.
In September 1963, my right hon. Friend who is now the Prime Minister made a speech in which he advocated what he called a university of the air. He referred to the very large potential market which adult educational television can cater for. He referred to people ranging from technicians who, perhaps, left school at 16 or 17 and after


two or three years in industry feel that they could qualify as graduate scientists or technologists. He referred to industrial or clerical workers who would like to acquire new skills or occupations. He referred to the housewives who might like to secure qualifications in the humanities or in social subjects. He referred to existing students of the W.E.A. or extramural classes which would, I believe, be enriched by the provision of systematic television courses. All of these constitute a market which could be attracted by a comprehensive educational television service.
As has already been said, a start has been made—or, to be more accurate, a number of starts have been made, because in different parts of the United Kingdom, under the auspices of different television and education authorities, experiments have taken place. Ulster Television provides a series of programmes, "Midnight Oil," in association with Queen's University, Belfast. In 1963 there was the Cambridge television work with its project of a dawn university. There have been recent Sunday morning programmes, and there has been most recently a most successful experiment, to which the hon. Member for East Grinstead referred, organised by Associated Television in conjunction with the extramural department of the University of Nottingham.
This list is not exhaustive, other examples could be quoted, and from these developments it is clear that valuable lessons have been learnt. Both the academic authorities and the television authorities alike appear agreed that where the television programmes can be reinforced by specially prepared handbooks, by exercises written by students and corrected by tutors, and by periodic discussion meetings of tutors and students, the results are most rewarding, because the use of these methods provides that precious personal link between the student and the authority responsible for the education which often makes all the difference between success and failure.
Both the television authorities and the educational authorities appear agreed as well that where the programmes can be organised on a regional, or a decentralised, basis, again they are likely to be at their most effective, and from the discus-

sions that I have had with people working in this field, I feel that a great deal of consideration should be given to this point about the need for regional or decentralised services.
Many lessons have been learnt from the experiments which have taken place, but it is clear that the efforts of different authorities have not been co-ordinated. It is clear that the experiences of the programmes which have been screened have not always been shared by all the people interested. Adult education on television has developed in an unplanned and haphazard way. Surely the time has now come for a big step forward? Should not we establish a national centre for broadcasting education, a centre on which all educational and broadcasting interests would be represented, a centre which would be given Government help and encouragement in every possible way? The purpose of such a centre would be to develop teaching by radio and television in conjunction with correspondence courses and periodic meetings of teachers and students, and to develop such teaching as a normal part of the national provision for education beyond school age.
We come, of course, to the controversial point of channels of broadcasting time. I believe that such time might be found in more than one way. I think that it is a false argument to say that we are either going to have a specific educational channel, or local regional decentralised educational broadcasting. I believe that there is a very good case for saying that an argument can be made for a mixture of both, and in a recent statement the Universities Council for Adult Education made a very useful distinction. It said that among the needs known to exist, and which educational television could help to fulfil, are the need for people to prepare for external degrees and preliminary qualifications, the need for preparation for professional qualifications, the need for industrial and professional retraining, and the need for liberal adult education and courses in basic subjects for students in industry and institutions of further education.
The U.C.A.E. went on to declare that it hoped a distinction would be drawn between educational programmes fulfilling the broad purposes of the fourth category, that is to say the category of


liberal adult education and courses in basic subjects, and the deliberately instructional programmes with more teaching purposes aimed at the earlier three categories. The U.C.A.E. suggests that the first three categories could be met through the provision of a separate educational channel, whereas the broader type of programme could be provided by existing methods and on existing channels. There, I believe, is a suggestion for drawing a distinction through which it would be possible to have some programmes on a special separate channel, and to have others on an existing one.
I could carry on for some time in this way discussing the problem of different types of channels, but I do not intend to do so, because I feel that what is needed essentially at the moment is determination to make a start with the development of a centre for broadcasting education. Once that determination is made, it will be possible to look at the specific problems in more detail. I believe that we now stand on the threshold of one of the greatest advances in education that this country has ever known. I implore the Government to take us over that threshold, and to move forward into the great experiment of a real educational television provision which will make this country the leader, instead of as it is now, one of the most backward of developed countries in the provision of such a service.

12.37 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I wish to intervene briefly and I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) on introducing the Motion as he did in a most informative way. I think that everyone understands the reason for it, but it would have been interesting to hear a further report on how the Glasgow experiment was shaping, and perhaps when the hon. Lady replies to the debate, she will be able to give some additional information on this matter.
I want to quote the words of Sir John Wolfenden, writing in The Guardian on 25th September, 1963, when he said:
Nobody could accuse us in this country of being impetuous or intemperate in adopting television as an educational instrument.
That is undoubtedly true, because the opportunities for using this media have

not been fully grasped, even though many experiments have been carried out. I see very little of the existing television programmes for schools, but I hear some of the B.B.C.'s radio programmes for schools. I do not think that the B.B.C. fully exploits this media, and I doubt whether there is as much of interest in these programmes as there could be.
Industry has been rather more adventurous in using closed circuit television for the training of apprentices. Some hospitals have used closed circuit television for the training of nurses and medical students. There were educational experiments on a much wider basis in the United States, Japan and Russia, and I think we are falling quite a considerable way behind.
I do not accept that there is a basic conflict between the aims of the "educational type" programme and the "educative" type programme. Basically, they can be complementary. The main focus of this debate is not on the need for improving educational television—I think that point has been made clearly by the hon. Member for Springburn and others—but rather the main problem arises over the alternative measures of deployment.
Firstly, we have the idea, put forward, I think, by the Prime Minister, of an entirely separate channel for educational television. Secondly, we have the idea, put forward by a number of other people including my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham North (Mr. Chataway) of closed circuit or microwave television not, of course, on the national channel but on a local basis. At the same time my hon. Friend argued that the "educative" and adult education type of programme on Independent Television and the B.B.C. as at present should be retained and not detached.
Without going very deeply into the differences between the two systems, I think that there are three basic points where there is agreement between both points of view. The Prime Minister and others will, I think, discover that this is not a great vote-catching issue, it is one which essentially should be looked at from the point of view of its educational relevance and the priorities in respect of broadcasting and the Treasury. There are three essential things which are common to both systems. Firstly, any service,


if it is to be used effectively, must be organised on a local basis. The experiments of which we have heard at Glasgow, Hull and other parts, underline this very clearly. It is, I think, possible to project a wonderful national blueprint, but I doubt very much whether a national type of programme would be used anything like so much as would a competent, well-run local system. This could be done by either of the two methods.
Secondly, I think it vital that this type of programme should be run and conducted by educationists—teachers in schools, university lecturers and adult education people. I think it important that they should have the final say in the type and nature of the programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North made this point well in his pamphlet. It is very important that the teachers in schools using their television should have close personal contact with the people projecting the programmes on television. This is much more effective if they are teachers in the same area and have a close link.
The third point on which there is broad agreement is the vital importance of developing a national Educational Television Centre. There may be differences about detail and what should be dealt with by such a centre. I think it must be a clearing house for ideas. It must give advice, both to schools and to the instigators of local type programmes, about the best type of equipment to use. It must also help to provide training for people who are to run local stations, and it might help in television technique training for teachers who take part in programmes. I think also that a national Educational Television Centre should provide a number of standard lectures on highly technical subjects on video tape which could be used by local television units at whatever time was most suitable. The lectures could be introduced by local people, and, if necessary, stopped at certain points. This would provide useful material on highly technical and other subjects on which well-known specialists were speaking.
I wish to refer to a particular interest of mine, representing as I do a Belfast constituency, and being, I think, the only Member of the House who is a graduate

of Queen's University, Belfast. I refer to the interesting experiment known as "Midnight Oil" carried out three years ago by Ulster Television and Queen's University, Belfast. To me the important thing about the programme was that educationists were in control. While fully using the facilities and co-operating fully with Ulster Television they played a major part in guiding the programmes. The main type of subjects put out were in the adult education field—history, problems of sociology, problems of the aircraft industry, biology and many other economics.
Everyone who took part was surprised how wide an audience had been attracted. I have not the figures available, but I think that the audience was about twice as big as anyone thought could be persuaded to watch an educational programme at 11 o'clock at night. Many of the lecturers were naturally unprofessional in style. The point I wish to make it that the programme techniques were simple and did not need a lot of highly technical television organisation. Teachers and lecturers dealt with adult educational subjects, using television to speak to their audiences.
Following this experiment the Independent Television Authority made available £100,000 for a three-year experiment with Queen's University. This was arranged in August, 1963. I am glad to see that the Assistant Postmaster-General is present on the Government Front Bench. I gave notice to the Postmaster-General that I should be raising this matter. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science will be able to say something about the "state of play" regarding these negotiations.
An application went in for permission to conduct an experiment and to have a separate channel for it—I think I am right—in November, 1963, under the former Administration. Many people have been disappointed that the Post Office has not been able to regard this in a slightly more imaginative fashion, and give a decision. I appreciate that the problems of providing a separate channel for an educational television service are basic and fundamental, but, as I see it, this would be entirely without prejudice as an experiment over a three-year period. No political party or the


Department need regard itself as being committed by the result. It will, I think, be possible to obtain a lot of useful information from granting to Queen's University the right to use a channel locally in Northern Ireland to secure more knowledge of this type of programme.
I end as I began, by quoting from the article in The Guardian by Sir John Wolfenden which I think well illustrates the point I wish to make. He says:
It would be unforgivable if wrangles about control or timidity in operation deprived us over the next 25 years of the opportunities which this medium affords. Of course it is not the answer to all our educational problems. But it is plain silly to refuse to accept it as a powerful and valuable ally.
I hope that the Post Office will be able to combine with the Parliamentary Secretary in giving us some encouragement in the Northern Ireland experiment.

12.51 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: We are having a most interesting dialogue on this subject this morning, but I think that it would be a mistake to assume, from the attendance in the House, that this is not considered a matter of real consequence, and one whose vital importance more and more people are beginning to realise. There is almost a ferment of interest in educational quarters. I think that it is fortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) should have seized this chance of raising this subject at this time. I think also it is fortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) was able to introduce the practical case of the University of Strathclyde. The valuable comments of the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) and others have shown the very wide range of interest which there is in the debate.
I welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Jennie Lee) as Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science and the fact that she has been specifically asked to give special attention to this problem. I find it a little difficult to see why the expressed interest in a national programme should necessarily

cut out the kind of development which many of us also want to see on a more local basis. There is a great deal of
truth in my hon. Friend's remark that there are distinct places for both. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that that is her view, too.
My own interest is limited, perhaps, but it is partly a result of certain discussions which I have had as a member of the Advisory Council to the B.B.C.—I may as well declare that interest, and the interest of having taken part in some of the I.T.V. educational programmes on Sunday mornings—and of the fairly long lifetime's experience which I have had in adult education. I think that there would be broad agreement that there are three ways in which television and sound broadcasting can play a big rôle. First of all, as I think the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) felicitously said, there are the enrichment programmes, general education programmes. We must not only hang on to them but should encourage their development in every possible way. These programmes may have an incalculable contribution to make to the general standard of education. They capture the imagination of people of all sorts and at all levels and times, which is of the utmost importance. One of the most striking things over the last years has been the exciting developments of interest in, for example, natural history, which has undoubtedly been stimulated by television programmes. Undoubtedly, whatever personal view we may have, there is no doubt of the stimulus of current affairs programmes, because current television comment is both sharper and, in many degrees, more vivid than it ever could be in the courses which many of us knew in years gone by.
Equally, it is striking and interesting how many people are taking advantage, for obvious reasons, of language courses and are prepared to spend some time on them. Indeed, in the programmes on the arts and related subjects, these people show their sincere interest by their willingness, in many thousands, to buy the synopses, written programmes and detailed books which are provided for these programmes. These programmes are all related to general enrichment. I hope very much that everything possible will


be done to encourage their further development.
Secondly, there is the wide and exciting development of the use of television and sound broadcasting in existing schools and colleges to serve their own purposes. Examples have been given of closed circuit television, and in this case we are most anxious that experience which has been gained over a long period should be shared as widely as possible. There is a valid question as to whether this is being done as fully as possible. Many interesting experiments have been started, and I am sure that a very valuable contribution can be made, in the way suggested, not only by enabling us to meet the teacher shortage, but also because of the liveliness of this form of approach. Television should not merely be a means of trying to meet the problem of the teacher shortage; it is exciting in its own right and a valuable medium for teaching. It should be seen as such.
Thirdly, there is the relatively new field, for us, of the development of the highest standard of long-term courses of education, which could lead to university qualifications of one sort or another. It seems to me that this is an opening which could be exploited by both national and local television. What we want is to have a team of experts to advise and help us in determining what subjects could be taught on sound radio, and what subjects are suitable for television treatment. I do not think that it is a difficult job. Most of the emphasis this morning has been on television, and I think that it is right to emphasise that there is a wide range of subjects still not fully developed on sound radio, particularly if one considers the serious development of connected courses of education. Frankly, for some subjects, the visual element is disturbing rather than helpful. It depends, no doubt, upon the lecturer and those taking part, but there is a whole range of academic subjects which could be developed most valuably on sound radio.
I hope that my hon. Friend will keep that clearly in mind. There has been a good deal of experience here. I was interested to note that, in the pamphlet which the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) wrote on the subject, he paid tribute to the work which the B.B.C. has done over a long period

in their schools broadcasts and the initiative which they have shown from time to time. On the other hand, sound radio has a part to play, although it is true that television can be particularly vital in particular subjects.
I would have thought that one subject of particular interest for courses of continuous study would be social studies, leading to training in the social sciences and of social workers. This is where both television and sound radio can be of value. Further experiments there, particularly among adults with earlier educational experience, would be most valuable, because there is a need for trained personnel. I hope that my hon. Friend will keep in touch with both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. They have both carried out a number of valuable experiments and their experience should be used. I hope that the hon. Friend will not neglect any opportunity to discuss these matters with both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V.
I am in complete agreement with the statement that educational control of these programmes is right, although I add the rider that we also need the advice of those who know something about presentation. I hope that perhaps through these means we might even begin to improve the standard of educational lecturing. I have a great deal of sympathy with university students who from time to time complain bitterly about the quality of university lectures, and, although I am no expert in this, I feel there is a great deal of truth in their complaints. It is important that the techniques of modern media and the use of modern media should be understood as much as possible. Nevertheless, I fully agree that the content, material and layout of courses should be under educational direction.
From experience I would say that one of the most interesting questions is how we link television and sound broadcasting programmes with live discussions. Quotations have been read emphasising this point. It certainly is one of the most important aspects. One can lose much of the value of programmes which are put out if it is not possible almost immediately to move into some discussion of the subject. The most realistic answer is the use of videotape and modern methods of this kind, in order


that the programme may be used at times which are suitable for the groups which will discuss them. It might be possible to pull in, on a local basis, qualified people who would help to take charge of the discussions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to make use of such experienced bodies as those dealing with adult education, the university extra-mural departments and W.E.A., who have worked together a great deal in the past.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not wait for the establishment of what we might eventually hope for—a major national channel—in view of the cost which would be involved. This may be a proper aim in the long term, and there should be discussions about it, but I hope that she will not wait for that but will make progress now. There is great value in the suggestion of an education centre and of getting together a valuable group of advisers to see what use can be made of existing channels, both I.T.V. and B.B.C. For this purpose both have national programmes. To stimulate and encourage in every possible way the local programmes, linked with local universities, can be of the utmost value.
It is possible that our discussions today may encourage my hon. Friend to go forward in this way and not to be too timid about it. I am sure that she will not be too timid because her personality is not a particularly timid one. I am sure that she will be only too eager to overcome any obstacles which undoubtedly will be in the way, and we look forward eagerly to the signs of this new adventure bearing fruit.

1.5 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: We are discussing this afternoon the part which television and radio should play in the creation of a wiser and better educated people of all ages and of all backgrounds in this country. We do this not as a means to a purely commercial end, having regard to the necessity for us to pay our way in the world, as it is put, but as an end in itself, believing, as we do, I am sure, that a wiser and better educated man is a happier man and that wiser and better educated people are happier people.
I therefore do not think that we can talk about the subject except in the context of broadcasting policy as a whole. I was one of the supporters, and still am a supporter, of the idea of an independent television broadcasting system. We must recognise, however, the risks which the presence of that system bring to the B.B.C.—not only risks which comes outside the B.B.C. but risks which come from within the Corporation. Those dangers come from looking over their shoulder the whole time at what in newspapers is circulation and what in B.B.C. terms is T.A.M. rating. I think that is the expression.
I hope that the B.B.C. will in no way attempt to lower its standards. I for one will fight very hard for the maintenance of higher standards rather than an effort to capture the widest audience. These pressures will continue. There have been many comments about persons and about the Director-General himself. I fail to understand the squeals of anger from some of my hon. Friends when we realise that if there is any blame to be attached to the appointment of individuals—and I do not necessarily accept that there is blame—the appointment was made by us, by my own party. When the book "Hugh Greene was my Valet" comes to be written, the authorship may not necessarily lie on the other side of the House.
I agree that we must not exclude from our considerations sound radio, although we are dealing mainly with television. To a section of the community—and we must watch this, because it is the old section of the community—sound radio is a much better medium for education than is the visual broadcasting. The B.B.C. have made developments recently in languages lessons. On two counts these have been quite remarkable. First, there is the enormous interest which is shown. As has been said, this is probably because most of the viewers intend to spend their holidays in Spain, France, Belgium or elsewhere on the Continent. The programmes have generated an enormous interest. The second point is that the people who are interested are adults. This is a new situation. We have gone a long way since, in this country, in the fifteenth century, one had only to be an alien to incur a fine of 40s. a year. We have gone a long way since then.
We are learning that the people of this country are anxious to learn, and that it is the adults who are anxious to learn. There is a section of the community—old, middle-aged and young—with no desire to learn. This is partly to be blamed on their parents. This is why I wish to continue to talk about education but not only of the young, because it is by education of the middle-aged and the old that we can make important strides. Much depends upon their ability and willingness to teach the young the desire to learn.
Many people feel that television is bad and has been a wholly bad influence on our society. Certainly it has been a bad influence in the sphere of conversation; the art of conversation has completely disappeared. But television is not wholly bad. It has made the most obtuse able and willing to learn. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) mentioned programmes such as those in which Sir Mortimer Wheeler appeared. We have programmes dealing with natural history, science and zoology in which people have taken a real interest and as a result of which they know infinitely more. We all know infinitely more now about the world we live in, about what moves other people, what their desires and feelings are, and about their languages than we have ever done before. This is done by dressing up television as entertainment, and this is one of the methods by which we can teach people, including ourselves, to learn.
The other method is what one might call the sandwich method. That is a method in which a mildly educational programme is sandwiched between a boxing contest and a programme about cowboys and indians. The unwillingness of people to go away between the two programmes means that they automatically assimilate a mildly educational programme in between. This is the danger of having a wholly separate education service. I am in favour of it, but it carries the danger that we get this specialisation which my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) mentioned, and we shall find that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will regard themselves as in no way responsible for any form of education so that the education of the adult will go by the board.
I now wish to make one or two remarks which are directed not against Her Majesty's present advisers but rather more against Governments in particular. I refer to the question of indecision. There are going to be new developments in television and wireless, as there have been in the past. I remember asking Parliamentary Questions in 1949 inviting Her Majesty's Government—the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) was then Postmaster-General, and Lord Hobson, as he is now, was the Assistant Postmaster-General—to make a decision about 625-line television. The reply was that the time was not opportune. Of course, this enormous delay has affected not only the industry but the ability of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to get on with the job. The same thing will occur about colour television. It strikes me as being rather sad. Here we are, the inventors of television—the first people in the world to have a regular television service—wondering whether we shall have a German, French or American colour system in use in this country.
Colour television is relevant to education. Just as pictures are better than sound, and moving pictures are better than still pictures, surely colour will prove in the long run better than black and white. Her Majesty's Government will have to make a decision in the very near future as to whether they are prepared to make the great capital outlay which will be necessary to create a completely new service.
There is, however, something that can be done in the meantime, and that is to utilise to the full those channels which we already have available. I do not believe that in this sphere the Postmaster-General should rely exclusively, or in any way, upon the B.B.C. When we have only three channels available it seems to me nonsensical that we should regard only two of them as being valid for educational use.
May I draw the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary to the terms of the Motion, which I accept and which I suspect she also will accept. It is fairly forthright. It states:
That this House … calls on Her Majesty's Government to encourage the establishment of a University of the Air … and … to sponsor a suitable television and radio service.


I hope that in her reply the hon. Lady will address herself to the specific requirement of that Motion.

1.16 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: I wish to join in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). It is particularly fitting that he should have had the opportunity to move this Motion, coming as he does, as does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), from a local authority area where some valuable pioneering work has been done in connection with educational television. I am glad that the hon. Member for Spring-burn has drawn his Motion widely, which has enabled us to have a valuable discussion.
I accept the division of the subject by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). They said that we are really talking about three things—first, generally educative programmes and the sort of programmes which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has been discussing. I do not share my hon. Friend's fears that a separate educational channel would stop the commercial television companies or the B.B.C. putting on programmes like "Panorama" and so on. This, I admit, was one of the conclusions of the Pilkington Committee, but I have never been a wholehearted admirer of the Pilkington Report although on personal grounds I am an admirer of the Chairman of that Committee. We all welcome the fact that there are a large number of generally educative programmes on television and we should all like to see more of these coming along, as I am sure they will.
Secondly, we are addressing our minds to adult education in its more rigorous sense, and here the House has been able to hear a great deal about past developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) told the House about the "Midnight Oil" programmes that Ulster Television has been showing in conjunction, I think, with the National Extension College at Cambridge. The National Extension College has done very valuable work in showing what can be achieved by a combina-

tion of television courses, correspondence and weekend residential courses. There has been a good deal else going on in this respect, and many experiments have taken place in various parts of the country to which one could refer. A particularly interesting one, about which I hope to find out more, has been run by Southern Television in Southampton with some assistance from the Department of Education and Science, in which a series of programmes was broadcast in conjunction with adult education interests to students in groups, thus facilitating group discussion and analysis of the programmes, which, as the hon. Member for South Shields rightly pointed out, is so valuable.
Thirdly, we are concerned with the use of educational television in schools and educational institutions. Several hon. Members have talked about the programmes for schools broadcast by the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. companies. We can fairly pay tribute to both channels for the work that has been done over the years and for the programmes which they broadcast to educational institutions, but, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East has said, only 9,000 schools out of 40,000 have television sets. There has been a considerable increase in the rate of installations in the last year or two but nobody can pretend that it is very satisfactory that less than a quarter of the schools have television sets.
I believe that there are two main reasons for this. In the first place, there are many teachers who, despite the excellence of some of the programmes broadcast, never feel that it is desperately important for them to have a television set for their classes, simply because there are few programmes in the year which are of direct relevance to them. There may be general enrichment programmes, about which the class could argue and from which they could benefit to a certain extent, but I believe that many local authorities and teachers have not felt that a handful of enrichment-type programmes a year justified spending money on television sets
We have to realise that only a small number of programmes relative to the complexity and variety of the work that goes on in a school can be broadcast by a national organisation. It has been estimated that to cover mathematics alone


for a grammer school up to O level would take all the school broadcasting time throughout a day.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): indicated dissent.

Mr. Chataway: This may be an exaggeration and I see the hon. Lady shaking her head, but my general point is valid that a national organisation broadcasting on one or two channels for a few hours a day can hope only to touch the curriculum at a few points. This is one of the main reasons why we have not had a more rapid installation of sets.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North have referred to the fact that the teacher in a classroom cannot feel that he or she has any control over, or any involvement in, the planning and production of these national programmes. We have a tradition of giving great freedom to teachers in the matter of method of teaching and the curriculum. We have sought, anyway, continually to give freedom to teachers though in fact this has been circumscribed, particularly in secondary schools, by a number of factors such as university examinations.
It is our belief, however, that the core of education is the relationship between a teacher and a child and it is therefore wrong for any central authority to try to dictate to teachers what they should teach and how they should teach. If that is our belief, we should not be surprised if teachers show some reluctance about taking television programmes in large quantities, because if they were to accept a vast amount of television material in their classes they would be in a real sense giving up control.
I do not make this second point as a criticism of the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., because I think that both have tried to bring the education world in on the planning of their programmes. The B.B.C., right from the start of its educational broadcasting, has devolved considerable powers on its Advisory Council on which are represented all parts of the educational world. The House must, however, accept that this is one of the reasons why

there has not been a more rapid installation of sets.
I should like now to indicate briefly why I believe that first priority should be given to a more rapid development of local closed circuit systems.

Mr. Park: Would the hon. Member not agree that an additional factor which prevents the wide use of school television is that many teachers are not certain about the correct way in which the television broadcasts should be combined with their class teaching? The purpose is not to replace class teaching but to assist and develop it. Would the hon. Member not agree that there would be greater enthusiasm on the part of teachers if it were possible to provide courses for teachers on the best way in which such programmes could be used?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, there is a good deal in what the hon. Member says, and if there is to be a greater use of television in the schools, however that television is provided—whether nationally or locally—we must have more short courses for teachers. This is particularly so if it is the teachers themselves who will do the broadcasting and prepare the programmes.
I believe that Glasgow and Kingston upon Hull are pioneering the right basic unit of administration for educational television. It seems to me that the locally controlled educational television station has a number of important advantages over any amount of national broadcasting. There are three advantages in particular. In the first place, it is possible with a local closed circuit system to provide a multiplicity of channels. I understand that in Glasgow there are to be provided four channels for television and one channel for sound, all on one cable. This immediately opens up the possibility of using television as a regular teaching medium and of harnessing television seriously to the needs of the schools. One can make an impression upon a considerable part of the curriculum with four or even five channels.
Even more important perhaps is that under a locally controlled system of this kind one has direct teacher participation. One of the reasons why the United States has carried educational television a great deal further than we have is that there


is a tradition there of locally controlled broadcasting. United States educational television is to a far greater extent both locally controlled and teacher controlled. I remember visiting 18 months or so ago an educational television station, not one of the most famous, in Arlington, Virginia. The studios were not elaborate. They had been built in a secondary school and the station was run by the teachers in the area. It was quite clear that a very large proportion of the teachers in the surrounding schools took a direct interest in it, joining together in the planning of programmes. The teacher who had delivered the lesson could expect to be cross-questioned about it by his colleagues, and there was every incentive to the staff in the schools to use the technical possibilities given to them. I believe, therefore, that the second major advantage of locally controlled educational television lies in the opportunity it gives for teacher participation.
Third, a local service can be provided at reasonable cost. Estimates of how much a national education service would cost have varied a good deal, perhaps, as one of my hon. Friends said. £15 million to £20 million for capital expenditure and £4 million or £5 million for annual running costs. Local stations could be provided to cover the great bulk of areas, at a comparable cost. I believe that the cost of Glasgow's installation will be about £250,000, and although any estimate must be somewhat speculative, when Glasgow has four television channels and one sound channel running, I think that annual expenditure should be comfortably within the £100,000 mark. Comparing this with the total cost of, say, a new school, it seems quite reasonable.
I hope that we shall, in the next few years, see a fairly rapid extension of local closed-circuit systems. With the use of microwave transmissions, these closed-circuit systems could be combined one with another, and by use of the cheaper video-tape recording machines now available, it would be possible for them to use a good deal of national material. I believe that the B.B.C. has already hinted that it would be prepared to make available its programmes for local stations to rebroadcast. Clearly, this would make a great deal of sense.
I turn now to the question of the national services. In my view, there is a need for expansion of the national services, but, if there is a choice to be made between expansion of local closed-circuit systems and development of a national education channel, local broadcasting ought to take priority. There is the difficulty here of the university of the air idea and the speech of the Prime Minister at Scarborough in October, 1963 when he said:
There must be a properly planned university of the air with all the resources of T.V. and radio and State-sponsored correspondence courses.
In its issue last week, Education suggested that the educational topic about which people talked most nonsense was educational television, adding:
After all, what better example of the bright red herring could there be than Mr. Harold Wilson's University of the Air?' It had qualities of superficial smartness and underlying irrelevance which made it irresistible as an election gimmick.
However irresistible it may have been at the time, I hope that the Government will not feel committed to this particular pre-election idea. On examination, there really is not very much in it, as a number of educationists have concluded since.
The picture drawn is one in which thousands of people would be studying for a variety of degrees, many more would be involved in postgraduate work, thousands more in retraining, and so on. Of course, one would not be able to do very much of that on one education channel. It would take about six channels running for 24 hours a day to cover fairly sketchily the work which goes on in one university, without attempting to help those who were involved in lower level work for university or in postgraduate studies.
If, therefore, the case for devoting the fourth channel to education rests upon the university of the air idea, I do not think that it is very strong. As several hon. Members have pointed out, there is plenty of spare time on the existing channels. We could have considerable expansion of national educational broadcasting, available in the home as well, on the three existing channels. BBC-2 is rarely used outside the evenings, and there is space available on the other two channels as well. The case for devoting


the fourth channel to education, therefore, can rest only upon the provision of adult educational programmes in the peak hours between 7 and 10 p.m.
Without attempting to argue the case in detail and at length, I must say that I simply do not believe that there is enough in the university of the air idea to justify the fourth channel on those grounds. It is true that one might be able, between 7 and 10, to provide some adult educational courses which would be watched by some people who would not otherwise follow a regular course at a technical college or elsewhere and who would not be prepared to watch such programmes outside peak viewing hours, but I believe that such people are relatively few. If a person is prepared to follow a serious course leading to a qualification, he or she will not be particularly affected by the hour at which the programme is broadcast.
The hon. Member for Springburn referred to this point at one stage in his argument. I thought that he rather overrated the possibilities of television in this respect. After paying tribute to the "night schools" and further education colleges, he said it was not surprising that many people did not want to go along to a technical college at the end of a hard day's work but preferred to relax at home or go to the "pub". I agree it is not surprising, but I think it must be accepted that someone who has not strong enough motivation to go along to a technical college in the evening is not likely to have strong enough motivation to sit at home by himself and follow on television a lengthy course leading to some qualification.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not altogether disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am thinking of men coming more into our own age group who are a little diffident about mixing with youngsters and, perhaps, showing their lack of knowledge in an evening class.

Mr. Chataway: It is a poorly run evening class at which people are made to feel like that. We must also ask whether, if one has only four channels, this is an economic way of using the fourth. Peak hours, of course, are extremely expensive. If the peak hours are used to reach large audiences, the marginal cost of putting on educational prob-

lems at any other time of the day is a great deal less, but if one has only four channels, would it be right to put on highly specialist programmes which can be of interest only to a very small fraction of the total viewing population?
I should like to see the fourth channel so organised—this is outside the terms of reference of our discussion today—that it would result in more intelligent programmes catering for the market that now reads what John Osborne's Jimmy Porter called "The posh Sundays". There will then be room for a great deal more on television that appeals to that kind of market. But to say that is very different from arguing that there ought at peak hours, when an audience of millions is available, to be a substantial proportion of programmes which can be of value only to a fraction of one per cent. of that audience. I believe, therefore, that the case for devoting the fourth channel to education is not a very strong one. I would hope that we might drop the phrase "the university of the air" altogether because I do not think that it conveys very much. It probably misleads more than it elucidates.

Mr. Park: I believe that some of the hon. Gentleman's difficulties arise from the fact that he is equating the university of the air with the fourth channel. That was not the intention of my right hon. Friend, now the Prime Minister, when he made his speech. He declared quite clearly that broadcasting time for the university of the air could be found either by allocation of the fourth T.V. channel together with appropriate radio facilities or by pre-empting the time from the existing three channels. Therefore, a university of the air and a fourth educational channel are not necessarily the same thing.

Mr. Chataway: I do not think that the educational case for the fourth channel is very strong. I do not think either that the university of the air concept conveys anything very realistic or practical. While I should like to see television doing more for adult education of all kinds, I do not think that the sort of picture which has been conjured up by this phrase is ever likely to be fulfilled, or could be fulfilled, by television.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: Is there not another factor to be considered, looking


at the possibility of a channel devoted to serious academic courses of instruction? That is that most families have one television set, and there would be a great deal of competition in the family as to the programme to which the television set should be adjusted. In addition, there is the need for a degree of privacy to which I think every student is entitled, or which every student would hope to have, when trying to follow a very complicated argument projected on television. To this extent, therefore, it is a limiting factor on the value of television in conveying a serious argument in the home.

Mr. Chataway: I think that there is much in that argument. So long as there is only one television set in the home, it is asking a great deal that the rest of the family should give up its entertainment, perhaps just at the moment when it wants to watch its favourite programme on one of the other channels, so that one member of the family may follow some programme which may be totally meaningless to the others.
Nonetheless, I believe that we should see a continued expansion of educational programmes on the existing channels. Whether they should continue to be provided by the B.B.C. and by the commercial companies is a matter for argument. I think that there is some case for bringing all these programmes under the control of one new educational authority. There are arguments on both sides, but it is clear that there is a continuing function for national broadcasting and that there are further unmet needs. I should like to see more national educational television directed to the persuasion of married women teachers to return to the schools. I believe that a good deal more could be done in this way to rekindle the interest of married women teachers.
I should like to see much more educational television directed to the mother of the pre-school child. A great deal of modern educational research shows how important the pre-school years are. We do not have an early prospect of a universal nursery school system. I believe that great educational dividends would result from paying a great deal more attention to the mother. Greater efforts

should now be made to show parents of young children what can be done to implant in children of that age a readiness to learn to prepare them for school. One or two very good series have been put on by the B.B.C., and I think that more of these would be welcome.
Finally, there is a third need which a number of hon. Members have urged, and that is for a national television centre which would have a co-ordinating and information rôle. It is difficult for some of the schools and colleges which are now installing closed circuit equipment to get reliable information about what is available. Not a great deal has been said about the closed circuit equipment that has been installed in a number of educational institutions over recent years. Altogether 33 technical colleges, 13 training colleges and seven secondary schools have now got closed circuit television purely for internal use according to the most recent count that I have seen. But these institutions and the local education authorities which are thinking of installing closed circuit systems have considerable difficulty in deciding what is the best equipment. I believe that Liverpool is thinking of following in Glasgow's footsteps, and that some of those concerned with the project in Liverpool have the greatest difficulty in discovering what is the best equipment. A source of advice would be helpful.

Mr. Hannan: The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about cost and also referred to Glasgow. I have a quotation which states that the capital cost of adapting the accommodation for studio purposes was estimated at £50,000 and that the annual cost of running the service was about the same figure. I do not know whether that affects the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Chataway: The studio is not the only capital cost. One has also to lay cables and install in the schools special sets which are more expensive than ordinary sets.
In view of what has been said today, I do not think I need urge upon the Joint Under-Secretary further the need for some co-ordinating centre of the type that I have mentioned. Incidentally, I am sure that all of us welcome the hon. Lady on her first appearance on the Government Front Bench in an education


debate. I for one extend my best wishes to her in the work on which she has now embarked.
I think that the time has come to harness television more comprehensively to the needs of the schools. We have seen a great deal of experiment over the postwar years, not only in this country but all over the world. There is now a very great deal of evidence to go on. I do not think that it ought to be controversial to claim that television can greatly increase the output of a teacher. It can increase the teacher's productivity. It can make greater use of the scarce skills of certain teachers. It used often to be said that television cannot replace the teacher—a piece of "soft soap" employed by those who argued for educational television were to make it absolutely clear that there was no possibility of teachers being thrown out of work because of television. I think that we have long passed that stage. It is no longer necessary to reiterate that idea.
The truth is that television can considerably help us in the present teacher shortage. It is for that reason that I would argue that the hon. Lady's first priority in considering the development of television ought to be the schools. I believe that there may also be a case for a substantial expansion of adult education programmes in the future, but the first priority ought to be the schools. The hon. Lady ought to consider how best and how most rapidly television can be more fully harnessed to the needs of the teacher.

1.51 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I am sorry to rise to speak so late in the proceedings, but, if the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State is agreeable, I should like to make a few remarks.
It has been a very interesting debate. The term "university of the air" may at first sight seem beyond the range of the ordinary layman. But, after having heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) develop his theme and after having heard other hon. Members making their contributions, I am convinced that this could be a really worth-while venture and would open up new opportunities, particularly for those

who left school on attaining the age of 15. There are a great many late developers in this age group, and I am convinced that they would benefit enormously by the type of education which the hon. Gentleman envisages as part of the curriculum of the proposed university.
Television has already introduced this type of teaching to most areas, and I am sure that adults would be very ready to avail themselves of its benefits. In certain parts of Scotland, particularly the Highlands, in the past the professions were fully catered for but technical education was largely at a discount. Now, however, it is becoming more and more evident that technical education is very important and that there are many more opportunities of securing posts where this type of education is necessary.
If the university is to be a success, it is very important that the right image should be projected at the outset. Having listened to the various speeches, I think that this is very important indeed. While it can be of great advantage to schools and higher education institutions, the promoters must never give the impression that they are interested chiefly in those pupils with the highest I.Q. These pupils could no doubt benefit, but the aim must be to help those who are lacking that little extra needed to qualify them for the many posts which have to be filled in industry and commerce.
There will no doubt be many difficulties to be overcome, as there always are when a new idea is mooted. There will be those who will doubt whether there is a need for this new departure. There will be the problem of finding suitable staff, for this will be a very highly skilled job. It must be realised that the teachers must have high qualifications to put their lessons across the air effectively. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) that it would be difficult in the evening to get a pupil to sit through a long session, and that is why it is important that we should have the right teachers to make the lessons more attractive.
There is also the big question of finance. I have no idea what it would cost to launch such a scheme, but I know that the sum would be very large.
Here we have a proposal with a vast potential and very fitting to the age in


which we live. I hope that the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for Education and Science, will go into every aspect very fully and that all possibilities will be explored for the benefit of future generations.

1.57 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): I am indebted to every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate today. There has not been one thoughtless speech and there has not been one destructive speech. Beginning with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), whom I should like to congratulate, not only on giving us an opportunity to debate the subject, but also on the very careful and able way in which he introduced it, we have had speech after speech whose cumulative effect has been to minimise the difference of point of view between the two sides of the House. I know that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) enjoyed a little fun with red herrings and so on—there is nothing much wrong with a herring—but I shall try to define where we agree and where we differ.
I am glad that several hon. Members paid tribute to the service to education done by radio as well as television. We must always remember the importance of radio in this respect, especially the school programmes. We are anxious to ensure the use of both radio and television in schools. A circular is going out soon pointing out that less than one-quarter of our schools have television sets. Whatever the limitations and difficulties of fitting programmes into a curriculum, we would like to encourage every school to have a first-rate receiving set for both radio and television.
We have to face the fact that we are falling behind other countries in the use of this medium. In Japan, for instance, more than 70 per cent. of the schools have television sets and the number is mounting to three-quarters of all the schools. Every kind of encouragement is being given to the use of television in our schools.
It is also common ground between us that the use of television is exciting and helpful to both child and teacher. We believe that television as a refreshment

and as a stimulus can help us to make the fullest use of the most accomplished teachers. But I want to put in this little warning that too much emphasis is laid on the suggestion that we can cut down the number of, the teachers we need because of the installation of television sets. That is not exactly the case. The teacher still has to be present; another common point among us is that we have all stressed the importance of the teacher in the scheme of things.
Then we come to closed circuit television. Mention has been made of the exciting experiment at Strathclyde. At Strathclyde, Glasgow, Hull, Southampton, Belfast, Nottingham and all over the country we are now beginning to have experiments in closed circuit television. We have now reached the point when 24 of our universities are using closed circuits, 34 colleges of advanced technology and technical colleges and 19 colleges of education. There is the lonely figure of nine for secondary schools, but this figure will be drastically changed when the Glasgow and other experiments get under way.
We all agree that the use of closed circuit television is extremely important and will soon become commonplace in all our universities and other educational institutions, whether for the young or for adults, just as it is becoming more and more used in industry and hospitals and elsewhere.
The real point of difference between us begins to emerge when we discuss the university of the air. I should like to read a paragraph from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, in September 1963, when he said:
I want to outline new proposals on which we are working, a dynamic programme providing facilities for home study to university and higher technical standards, on the basis of a university of the air, and of nationally organised correspondence college courses.
That remains the intention of the Government. All we are discussing is the timing and method of implementing the university of the air, and I will define more narrowly and precisely what I have in mind when I use that phrase.
It certainly does not mean, as was suggested in the Pilkington Report, that a separate channel for education is opened up to undertake all educational broad-


casting, with the result that the I.T.A., B.B.C. or other channels are impoverished. It would be shocking and absolutely undesirable if liberal programmes of refreshing lectures, and the high-level talks which Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Sir Kenneth Clark have delivered, were not to continue to appear on the general broadcasting programmes. It would be most undesirable if there were any letdown in the amount of time being given to general educational programmes by both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.
The fears of the Pilkington Committee and others were completely unfounded, because, under the rights given to both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., they have a responsibility towards education as well as towards entertainment. I have been analysing the amount of time given by the respective channels to these purposes. The number of hours depends a little on the times of day chosen, but I think that it is fair to say that in broad terms B.B.C. sound is giving 5·5 per cent. of its time to educational programmes, B.B.C. television 16·1 and I.T.A. 12 per cent. Keeping to television, B.B.C. television is giving an average of 14 hours 55 minutes a week and I.T.A. 7½ hours.
The difference between the figures is interesting. There are more repeat programmes on the B.B.C. than there are on the I.T.A., but in the first few weeks in which I have had the responsibility for looking into this matter I have been asking certain questions to see how far it is left entirely to the judgment of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to decide how much they can spend on their programmes, the amount of hours devoted to them, the time of day at which they are broadcast and so on. I believe that both channels at present are left free to decide for themselves. There is a sort of informal understanding and there is a great deal of co-operation among the people responsible for education on the different channels. Sometimes the same personnel are engaged by both. It is done on a rather informal basis and it may be that we should look into this to see if it would be helpful to have even more co-ordination than there is now.
I did not agree with everything in the interesting and thoughtful pamphlet of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, North, but I agreed with one paragraph when he said that it was not desirable to have

too much competition in this respect and that the need was for school programmes, whether by I.T.A., B.B.C., B.B.C.2 or radio.
There should be general liberal programmes, but in addition there is a considerable number of people who would like something more than the general educational programmes, however stimulating and however refreshing. They would like to feel that they are taking part in a serious educational project at the end of which they would receive definite qualifications.
I approach the problem of a university of the air from this angle, not that it should take over the work now being done on the other channels, nor impoverish them by withdrawing liberal lectures, nor anything else of that kind. We ought seriously to consider whether we do not now need to give an opportunity to many people, whatever their age, sex or circumstances, whether they are living in Ross and Cromarty, which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) defends so charmingly and so well—and they do not have closed-circuit television up there, or in the remote parts of the Hebrides, or in the hearts of the cities—and who need something more than is already being done.
I believe that there is such a need. We have a great tradition of adult education in this country, but we have to be careful that it does not become a little dowdy and mouldy. The days when people would go out to the old-fashioned night schools and sit on hard benches are receding. They are now looking for a different kind of environment. There was a kind of passion for hair shirts from hon. Members opposite today, a passion which I do not share. It is perfectly true that one can do nothing of high excellence without a great deal of effort and a great deal of concentration, but I do not see why one should be physically uncomfortable in its doing. Therefore, it is true to say that the physical environment of many of our traditional night schools is becoming out of date. I have here, for instance, the Adult Education Journal for March this year. I am interested to see that it meets my attitude exactly. It states, in discussing, not a university of the air, but the traditional


provision of extra-mural training in night school:
Public libraries possess several potential advantages that could be further exploited—the quiet atmosphere of serious enquiry and the large regular clientele (something like thirty per cent. of the adult population compared to the less than one per cent. who enrol in W.E.A. Extra-Mural classes in any year), who are already exercising some discrimination in purpose and subject. Libraries have staff who, by training, will be predisposed to encourage reflective and academic study and can, of course, provide books and other sources of intellectual stimulus. Future building policy for public libraries might well include one or two rooms, suitably equipped for adult class work, although also usable for other community activities.
I read this at length because the perfectly proper point was made that in the average home there is only one television set and one sitting room. As we know, Gresham's law applies, and whether father or son is the stronger personality, one of them will see whatever "pop" programme or other programme he wants to see at a given hour. In that competition in the home it might be the more studious who would be the loser.
I do not think that Thomas Hardy is much read these days, but I know that "Jude the Obscure" was one of the formative books for me when I was a young student—the struggle for self-education, the struggle in circumstances where poverty, ill health and everything else lead to the final tragic defeat. So that when we are thinking of a university of the air, in common sense and common courtesy, we must consider the receiving end.
If we are to mount a really eélite corps of lecturers—and nothing less than that has any relevance—and if we want a university of the air ending with a definite qualification which I should like to be nothing less than the external degree of London University—I am not saying that it should be that degree, but that is the sort of level at which we should aim—one of the preliminary things that we must do is to find out where people would be able to study in peace and quietness. Some might have a television set in their own homes and quietness, yet prefer the stimulus of going to a local library, a local civic hall, a local school —some of the modern schools can provide comfortable accommodation—with a silence room and chairs where they

could view the lecturers and where the people gathered there would be a natural tutorial group meeting for that purpose.
I hope that we will encourage officially every one of our local education authorities and everyone interested in this project to look round and improvise according to local circumstances for the best and most convenient place for a community listening post, apart from the sets which people have in their own homes.
I come to timing. Just as I am not terribly in favour of hair shirts—in fact, I am not in favour of them at all if they can be dodged—I am not enamoured of the idea of dawn patrols and midnight parades. It is astonishing how we can talk of learning in uncomfortable circumstances for other people, especially those of us who have had extremely comfortable university careers. Therefore, if we are talking in terms of a community listening post, at what hours of the day would it be possible for people to listen?
This at once brings up the problem that if we want to mount, say, an arts degree or a science degree, or both, we must have peak listening hours and a considerable amount of time at the weekends. I therefore wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister's project and intention that, whether it is the fourth channel or some other channel, we must be able to decide the hours of listening on educational grounds and not simply take what is left over for other purposes. That does not preclude a preliminary canter in which we look at the unused time on the I.T.V. channel and the B.B.C. channel.
I have been looking into this matter. The estimates vary according to the hours one takes. But it is quite clear that between the two channels there are at least 52 listening hours which would come from between 9.0 a.m. and 5.0 p.m. On one channel it might be 9 to 11, on another 11 to 12, sometimes 12 to 2, and on yet another 2.30 to 5. If we go from 7 o'clock in the morning we could make our own calculation of the additional hours. We must consider very seriously the unused hours on the existing channels.
I believe strongly that in education the leadership should come from the teachers and that, while we do not discourage the work done in this field by I.T.V. in co-operation with the univer-


sities and the schools, the time has come for the initiative to be taken by the Department of Education and Science or by the universities—essentially from the teaching end. This partly answers the point that the teachers should be brought into this matter. I am talking not about closed-circuit television teaching but on another level. In addition, I think that we are all agreed that there is a need to provide people with the opportunity of becoming university graduates without their necessarily attending residential universities.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend has spoken of a preliminary canter in advance of a major decision. I wonder whether there is the possibility of a local broadcasting station being set up which would be able to experiment in a degree course. I can say that there are a number of very enthusiastic people in the University of Manchester. Is it possible to institute a pilot scheme so that they might be allowed to proceed in the way that they would like?

Miss Lee: I was coming to that point. It is interesting that Manchester wants to broaden out on closed-circuit television. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has put in a word for Queen's in this matter, and we have had a plea made on behalf of Strathclyde. It is clear that there is a feeling in the university centres that they should not be doing only closed-circuit television, but that they should be getting through to individual homes. I was coming to that point, because it justifies my saying that we are beginning to narrow the field of difference between us.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Lady is taking this idea of a nationally organised university of the air a good deal more seriously than I expected. Has she discussed this with the University Grants Committee? If this is a serious proposal, I should have thought that that was the first body to consult.

Miss Lee: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too alarmed when I say that I am doing a number of feasibility tests on the hours available, the cost, and the whole technical structure. Nothing like this would be put before the university authorities until we had first considered the feasibility tests. We have

these pleas from Manchester, Belfast, Hull and Strathclyde. What they are all trying to say is that they are excited about closed-circuit television but that it is not enough because it leaves many parts of the country untouched.
We cannot get through to all kinds of people in circumstances when they are not attending university classes. The drill as I see it, therefore, is that we should look carefully at the unused time in the existing channels. What can we do with that unused time? Should we use it for some more general liberal programmes of refreshment, or ought we to try to tie it to high-level lectures of an undergraduate nature? I am not giving the answer to any of these questions today; I am not presuming to do so. I am making it clear that serious work is taking place on these matters.
I am working in the closest co-operation with my colleagues the Postmaster-General and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). We are looking into all the possibilities of whether we can have an expansion of television education by using unused time and who should run it. We think that it should be run essentially by teachers from the educational end, with co-operation and taking the advice and help of the valuable work that is done by I.T.V. and the B.B.C. We are looking into all this to see what sort of courses could be mounted in the time that is available and what the cost would be.
It will, however, be agreed that the more we examine what is possible in the present set-up, the more obvious it becomes that ultimately, if we are to have a degree course on television, we must control peak listening time. We would not necessarily want the whole of a channel—I have no inhibition about earning a bit of money. The whole subject of educational television must be looked at to see whether we are getting the right relationship with the work which is done in the junior schools, the secondary schools and the rest.
We must see what hours we need for the kind of projects that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated, whether there is something left over to sell, if we want to sell it, and in what manner we go about it. It is only fair to the


House, which is interested in this matter, not to leave it in any doubt about the seriousness of the work and the thought that are going on in this direction.
One more thing that I should like to make clear is that anyone who talks in terms of a university of the air is really seeking to add a new dimension to the traditional adult education courses. We cannot do it unless people have their books, and I agree with what was said about going through with the project. This is only one of a number of ideas that are being tried out. Certainly, a small fee would be paid for the tutorial books, the paperbacks. There would have to be gathering grounds for the local tutorials and the correction of papers. There would have to be, above all, a vice-chancellor of impeccable standing. I am not interested in having the next best thing, a poor man's university of the air, which is the sort of thing that one gets if nothing else is within reach. We should set our sights higher than that.
We have started later in the race than other nations. We are falling behind much that is being done in America and behind some of the work of Russia and Japan, but I see no reason why this country should not regain leadership. We need it. There are professional people who need the refreshment of following a course of this type. We could have an élite corps of lecturers who would have to be of the new age in the sense that they would be expert in their subjects, but, at the same time, they would have to have the special expertise that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North got before he came into this House, of knowing how to broadcast. All those things have to be considered.
I do not like the amount of cynicism and of defeatism that I find in some quarters in dealing with this project. I ask some hon. Members to think again. Are not their sights set a little too low? I am not saying that the Government can afford to set overambitious schemes in action at once, but I believe in open diplomacy; I believe that at this moment, when a great deal of thought is being given to how best we can use those wonderful new techniques, the House of Commons should have more discussions of this kind.
It should be remembered that every time we think of future developments, we find that there are new technological advances that are outstripping our plans. For example, it will be only a matter of weeks before we have a new machine available, which is not coloured television—I cannot explain the technicalities very well—but the essence of which is that a film is shown on what looks like an ordinary television screen. It can be either plain or in colour. We have practically reached the point when the film can be stopped or reversed at any moment. The Japanese have done a lot of work on this, but not on the same level as ourselves. We in this country have a habit of producing brilliant inventions and having them exploited elsewhere.
I am, however, speaking only tentatively today. We are doing only the first feasibility schemes. We are looking carefully at the genuine needs of people of every kind, those who want a second chance, those who have never had a first chance and those who want to change their courses or their jobs. There are many people. The great majority would be those who would not want to go right through to final examination but would enjoy the certainty of knowing that they were listening to a status course and not something that was second best.
It is in that spirit that we are working on the subject. I therefore thank hon. Members opposite for the help and support which they have given in the work which we are doing in encouraging closed-circuit television and the use of television in the schools. I hope that before too long we can persuade them to be just a little more courageous in considering this exciting and important project of a university of the air. It is expensive, I agree, but perhaps the question which we will soon be asking ourselves is not whether we can afford to have it, but whether we can afford not to have it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, being acutely aware of the need for furthering education and of the need to give the fullest possible assistance to the teacher in the classroom and bearing in mind that an educational television and radio service would assist in mitigating the continuing teacher shortage, calls on Her Majesty's Gov-


ernment to encourage the establishment of a University of the Air in television and sound radio and, in the field of formal education of both children and adults, to sponsor a suitable television and radio service.

CANCER (RESEARCH AND PUBLIC EDUCATION)

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Alan Beaney: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the valuable work of Governmental and voluntary agencies in promoting research into the causes of and cure for cancer, but, in view of the heavy toll on human life and happiness caused by this disease, urges Her Majesty's Government still further to increase financial aid to, and facilities for, research in this field.
I am aware that this has been the subject of many Questions tabled by many hon. Members of this House and that invariably the Govermenal replies have repeatedly stated that promising leads in cancer research have not been held up for lack of money. In a Written Reply to me on 23rd April, 1964, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, referring to the Medical Research Council, said:
I am assured that the Council have not been hampered by lack of funds in their support of proposals for cancer research which have come before them:"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 201.]
On 23rd November last year, in a Written Reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), my right hon. Friend gave a somewhat similar answer of assurance. When, as one often does, one reads in the Press the pathetic appeals by various organisations for donations towards cancer research, I become more than a little worried as to the worth of such assurances.
More than 2½ million people die every year of cancer. In the United Kingdom the number has steadily risen every year. In 1951 the number of persons dying of cancer was 98,020; in 1963 the number had risen to 116,489, which, in effect, means that 18 out of 100 deaths were caused by this disease—and this despite the great strides which have been made in the treatment of cancer. And yet today hundreds of thousands of cancer sufferers are walking around alive and comfortable having benefited from the

advances which have been made in surgery, radiotherapy and in drugs which help to control cancer.
These great advances we owe to research workers, and it is to research workers that we shall owe the final conquest of this disease. I appreciate that there is a very wide field involved when we discuss research for the solution to the cancer problem. It involves the work of biologists, physicists, chemists, and virologists. I am none of these, but I am aware also that the work involves the politician and the legislator. The politicians and the legislators have a part to play. They have a part to play in providing the necessary finances for the health of the nation.
The financing of cancer research is a most complex web. It would appear that the great part of the money spent on research is raised by voluntary means even though the Government's own expenditure has been steadily rising. The Medical Research Council"s expenditure on cancer research in 1962–63 was £0·75 million; in 1963–64 it was £0·95 million; and this last year it was a little over £1 million. I appreciate, and it is most encouraging to learn, that some of the activities previously supported by the Medical Research Council have now been taken over by the universities and hospitals. Nevertheless, the fact still remains that the amounts allocated for medical research, in general, and to cancer research, in particular, are paltry in comparison with the expenditure on other kinds of research. To take two or three examples, in 1963–64 expenditure on research in agriculture was more than £14 million; research in industry and communications was more than £41 million; and the money spent on nuclear science research was more than £52 million.
I want to submit that the amount for cancer research could be doubled or even trebled without making any appreciable impact on Government finances as a whole. I believe that the voluntary organisations are attempting something which it is the duty of the Government to provide. I appreciate also that we shall all pay tribute to the voluntary agencies for the noble and magnificent work which they do. The British Empire Cancer Campaign, which carries out no research work of its own but whose sole function is to raise money


towards the work, has done a great job of work. The Imperial Cancer Research Fund combines the two functions both of raising money and carrying out its own research.
Then there is the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Cancer Hospital, the largest single cancer research centre in the country. It has a total current expenditure—for 1963–64—of £657,640. It received grants from the Medical Research Council of £340,670 and from the British Empire Cancer Campaign it received £172,418. It is rather remarkable to note that among other grants there is one of over £50,000 from the United States of America"s public health service. The hospital has expressed its grateful thanks for such a donation, and I am sure it is grateful, but, nevertheless, I believe it to be a shameful national disgrace that our nation should be dependent upon the charity of America in this most important field of research work.
I also believe it to be a disgrace that the voluntary or part-voluntary organisations which are responsible for such a great part of the research work now carried out should lead a hand-to-mouth existence. I say this because in their annual reports they have from time to time expressed concern about their financial future. Professor Haddow, Director of the Chester Beatty Institute, as far back as May four years ago, in a letter to The Times, was pointing out that the combined financial support from the charitable public and Government sources had proved insufficient and that the gap had to be bridge by grants from the United States. He went on to say:
From all these and other sources it is doubtless correct to say that current projects are being just adequately supported. We are, however, rather less successful in providing for what I call "marginal growth" and in anticipating the needs of the future.
I said earlier that I was wondering what Ministerial assurances are worth. I would quote one appeal which regularly appears in the national newspapers:
There's no quick way to a cancer cure. The final defeat of this awful disease will come from long, painstaking research. Yet a lot of that research has been done already—and has produced some remarkably hopeful results. Today, we can definitely treat certain types of cancer. The British Empire Cancer Campaign wants to help research until it can cure all types of cancer. That's why it needs

money. Money to finance scientists and Institutes. Money to buy the intricate machines and equipment so urgently.
A few months ago an advertisement in the Observer stated that the Institute of Cancer Research required a research worker on micro-organisms. It said:
Experience in biochemical or microbiological fields advantageous. Minimum qualifications A levels in Chemistry and a biological subject.
The beautiful salary that it was proposed to pay was a niggardly £600 per annum.
I hope that the Government will now fully meet and fill this need, for there must be something wrong with our system of society, something wrong with our sense and standards of values, something wrong with our priorities, when we can find hundreds of millions of £s for the destruction of life, hundreds of millions of £s for the protection of property and wealth, despite the fact that there are no pockets in shrouds, and yet all that we can scrape together to combat this enemy of mankind, an enemy that knows no national boundaries or class barriers, is a niggardly and paltry £1 million in the last year.
It appears to me that we cannot afford the medical facilities which cancer clinics would give our people, such as they do in Russia, clinics where cervical cancer could be detected and cured, so saving many of the 3,500 women who die in this country each year. The following article appeared in The Guardian on 3rd November, 1964:
In Britain 3,500 women die each year from cancer of the neck of the womb, also called cervical cancer. These mortality figures have led to a growing public demand for a nationwide cytological screening service. This demand has received added impetus from the somewhat unusual source of the Trades Union Congress. This year's congress joined many women's organisations by demanding that this service be introduced "forthwith". Townswomen's Guilds and Women's Institutes have both passed resolutions urging 'that Her Majesty's Government treat as a matter of urgency the provision of comprehensive facilities for routine smear tests for cervical cancer'.
It would appear that we cannot afford to purchase the Betatron machine in Great Britain so that cancer victims might live, but we can afford a machine like the TSR2, the cost of which would install a Betatron machine in every hospital in the country.
The same sorry tale can be told of public education in cancer. In a Written


Reply to me on 27th April, 1964, the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said:
… the advice given in 1953 to local health authorities about local cancer education campaigns will be reviewed in the light of the Report of the Joint Committee on Health Education …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 4.]
We have had that Report for almost a year. It was reviewed in the New Statesman on 15th May last by my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Health, but we are still awaiting action, particularly some action on cancer education.
The Report said:
On cancer education, we are aware of the divided views currently held on this subject. We are convinced, however, that education aiming at a truer understanding of cancer and the methods for early detection can do nothing but good. Unreasonable fear of cancer is caused by ignorance, not by knowledge. We have been impressed by the work of the Educational Project of the Manchester Committee on Cancer and by their evidence that cancer education when properly carried out yields worthwhile results and does not create anxiety neurosis.
The World Health Organisation's Report on the prevention of cancer, No. 276, says that:
the majority of human cancer is potentially preventable",
and goes on to state that the
organisation of cancer prevention in the first place lies with the central Government.
It follows, therefore, that legislation and action are necessary to prepare and sustain the educational programme which is certainly needed. The International Union against Cancer holds much the same view.
I believe, therefore, that there is a need for a more complete utilisation of the medical knowledge we already have. This is because of the public's lack of awareness of recent developments and techniques of prevention and treatment. I pay tribute to the local authorities and to those organisations who are doing what they possibly can in cancer education, but, to be effective, such education should and must reach every section of the population. For far too long cancer has been wrapped in a blanket of taboos and superstitious nonsense. I call on the Government to conduct an immediate and sustained cancer education campaign. Let us have a national cancer year. Let us utilise all the media that we possess, Press, posters, radio, television and our

educational system, so that people might learn that cancer is not synonymous with an automatic death sentence. If this were done, it would dispel fear and give hope to many who still believe this. If, as some have said, it might create some hypochondriacs, what do a few hypochondriacs matter if it means that the thousands who are now dying might live?
I believe that no Government, whatever their political persuasion, have ever tackled this grave problem with the urgency and seriousness which it warrants and requires. In making this appeal I have spoken not only as one who has had to learn to live in the shadows of this disease, but also as one who has experienced the exquisite joy of emerging into the sunshine of deliverance.

2.48 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Beaney) has done a service in the House this afternoon by following an interesting debate on the university of the air and adding to the general principles advocated there by dealing with this serious problem of cancer. I am certain that my hon. Friend spoke with feeling. He spoke from experience, and the information that he gave no doubt fell on the ears of my hon. Friend the Member for the Minister of State for Education and Science in such a manner that he and his colleagues will give due notice to my hon. Friend's appeal.
There is no doubt that throughout the country some of the best people in our land are giving up much of their time to the solution of a problem which brings heartache and misery to so many people. There is no doubt that many people with skilled knowledge of this disease have given much to the solution of the problem. Nevertheless, there is evidence to show the need to canalise what is being done in order to achieve a purposeful aggregate result. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth produced alarming statistics and I hope to add to them, but several questions arise from the statistics impinging on the problem of finance which somehow or other always rears its ugly head when the question of conducting a campaign against this disease arises.
Before referring to specific evidence I wish to express my gratitude to my right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and to his Parliamentary colleagues as well as to his predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, for the patience which they have displayed in the face of the number of Questions which have already been raised on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth referred to the Answer on 23rd November given by the Under-Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis). The Minister said that the amount spent on the Medical Research Council for 1964–65 in connection with this disease was approximately £1,029,000. He went on to say:
This does not include capital expenditure. The Government also support cancer research through their financial grant to universities and medical schools through the University Grants Committee; and at hospitals within the National Health Service. In addition a great deal of basic research which may well throw light on the problems of this disease is supported out of public funds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 143-4.]
I was impressed by the number of bodies which are involved in research and education in connection with this matter, and by the limited amount of money which is available. There is the Medical Research Council, the universities, medical schools, hospitals within the National Health Service and voluntary organisations. There is the British Empire Cancer Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. All of these organisations are carrying out excellent work. It is an indication of the British character that we have this wonderful voluntary and professional support. With this expressed desire for standards in research and national concern for progress in this important matter, I wonder why it has not been possible, at this point in the twentieth century, to utilise all these organisations and canalise them in such a fashion as to provide an integrated service.
I wonder whether the amount of money available is enough, but I need not wonder too long, because my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth has made clear that the money available is a dismally small and discouraging amount. On 11th March of this year the Secretary of State helped us when he informed the House that the total grant in aid

of the Medical Research Council for the coming financial year would be increased. I should like to include him in my congratulations and say that this is a welcome positive step from the Government. I hope that the increases made are not on the basis of meeting the increasing costs of existing services, but will take into account the margin which should be available for the provision of more research equipment and training.
I hope that the Minister will take into account the concern expressed in this House about the problem of cancer, and enable the Medical Research Council to achieve further expenditure on cancer research which should be made possible from the promise of an increased grant in aid. I wish to remind the House that hon. Members are worried about the incidence of cancer as it affects women. The facilities available for the screening of women make it possible to test 39,000 each month principally through the hospital clinics. This may sound encouraging. The available information indicates that 200 pathologists and 150 laboratory technicians are helping in this connection.
This impressive figure of 39,000 screening tests per month leads one to feel that there is some heartening progress, but about 4,000 women die each year from cancer, particularly of the cervix and the uterus. We must not allow the figure of 39,000 screenings per month to lead us into a state of complacency. The task is immense and our determination to meet it ought to be clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth referred to an important article in The Guardian on 3rd November, 1964. Because of the importance of this aspect of the disease, I ought to read the concluding paragraph of that article. It says:
Whatever is being done, it seems we shall yet have to wait some years before a widespread service is available. Successive Ministries have dragged their feet. There may have been a genuine doubt as to the need and the efficiency of general screening which is not, even now, fully dispelled. Many feel that the financial factor, threatening to swell an already inflated National Health Service budget, has been the major cause of delay. Yet it is preposterous that a country which has produced Harvey, Jenner, Simon and Fleming, should play second fiddle to Hungary and, possibly to China. Sadder still is the fact


that, while the delay continues, 3,500 women will continue to die each year from a disease which could in many cases be prevented. Cervical cytology is probably one of the simplest yet most effective contributions to preventive medicine. There is a sense of urgency in the diagnosis of cancer and intelligent women fret at interminable delay in introducing a scheme.
The important point of this paragraph is the following:
It is men who commonly advance and administer these services. One wonders what these people might do if cancer of the prostate could be detected by a reliable screening test and occurred on a scale similar to cervical cancer? Be assured that there would be a diagnostic clinic in every village and a special unit at the Ministry.
We ought to draw our own lessons from that paragraph. We men must not underestimate the serious frustration, anxiety and, I would suspect, suicidal rate among women who have to suffer this terrible disease in this part of their bodies.
The latest figures show, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth has mentioned, that in 1963, 116,489 deaths resulted from this disease. I draw the attention of the House to the siting of this disease and the incidence of deaths arising from it. Figures for cancer of the stomach between 1951 and 1963 show a slight fall, from 16,869 deaths to 15,556. Figures for cancer of the intestines and rectum for the same two years fell from 18,249 to 16,805. I should be happy to feel that a reduction in the number of deaths caused by this malignant growth on this siting is indicative of progress.
I am not led to believe that that kind of progress is a reality because of the following statistics. Where the disease is sited in the trachea, the bronchus and the lung, deaths rose, over the same two years, from 14,858 to 27,620. In the breast, for the same two years, the number rose from 9,033 to 10,683. There was a very minor fall where it is sited in the uterus, from 4,621 to 4,454. The figures for leukaemia and aleukaemia are almost static, and other variations of the disease show an increase from 32,199 to 38,191. The percentage of total deaths caused by cancer was 15·5 in 1951 and 17·8 in 1963.
Over a period of just more than a decade the percentage of deaths arising from cancer has risen. In total, therefore, we have not made much progress. It seems from the following figures that the

problem as it affects men is just as serious as that which affects women. The death rate from cancer figures per million living in 1963 was 2,417 for men and 1,952 for women. It is as serious for men as for women. We know that the nature of cervical cancer is an exceptionally serious problem for women, but numerically cancer is equally a serious problem for men, and it is not unreasonable to point out that the largest number of deaths apparently arise from lung cancer.
When we consider how best to deal with this devastating disease we ought to have some aims in mind. We must try as a nation to invade the frontiers of a scourge which attacks the human race. That ought to be the first aim—to decide that this is a war. Secondly, we must ensure that an adequate share of our resources is devoted to determining the nature of the disease. Unless we are prepared to go all out and to allocate a satisfactory apportionment of our resources to understanding the disease, we shall never be in a position to attack and defeat it.
The third objective ought to be to create new information and education services and to multiply the instruments needed to attack the disease—instruments such as laboratories, trained men and women and an adequacy of modern equipment. Fourthly, we should integrate the various services and provide a centre large enough to determine the power and the direction of the forces aligned with cancer.
I recall very early in this Parliament raising a question about the de Gaulle proposals. Hon. Members will recall that the United States, Britain, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany and France had a meeting which arose out of the proposals originated by France, and that President de Gaulle wrote as follows:
The idea of promoting cancer research within the framework of an international institution springs from a generous inspiration and I consider it desirable that France should be associated with it. It does, indeed, appear to conform with France's tradition that she should enter upon a venture with this threefold aspect—co-operation between peoples, human progress, and the advancement of science. Accordingly, I have entrusted the Minister of Health with the task of taking all the initiatives necessary in this respect. I would ask you to make this known to other


personalities who, with yourself, signed the message which you sent to me.
I would add that while the President felt that it was in conformity with the traditions of France that such a project should appeal to the countries enumerated, it is also in conformity with the British character that we should respond in like manner, and I am pleased to say that in response to my question to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science I got a very favourable answer, which shows that the present Government are willing and anxious to co-operate with France to deal with this troubled, angry, vexing question of cancer in accordance with the general principles outlined last autumn.
May I add, in connection with the idea of working together to try to create an integration of the various services which I mentioned, that the second point is even more appealing and is one which will gain the acceptance of our countrymen, in that during the course of these discussions last autumn in order to make the plans effective it was suggested that ½per cent. of the 1963 defence budget in France would be an adequate means of financially supporting the proposals. The estimate on this basis would be £7 million. As a matter of interest, I applied the same formula to the defence budget of this country of £2,000 million, and I found that on the basis of ½per cent. our contribution would be £10 million.
This is an amount which would be less effective in terms of defence—too little, in fact, to add one tittle to any sophisticated weapons of today of the kind that the hon. Member for Hemsworth outlined; but it is an amount which is significant enough to contribute in waging a war on an enemy which is ignorant of political philosophy but death-dealing to the human race.
During the course of this Parliamentary Session we are trying to deal with many major policy decisions involving this country. Often we politicians cannot see the wood for the trees. But I believe that when we are dealing with the question of preserving and saving life, when we are thinking in terms of what is best for the individual, we must turn our backs on some of the current major issues and confront things which

are more important to the human race. This question of cancer is such a case. I am satisfied that this House is determined to bring a new health, a new status, a new dynamic to this country by allocating more of our resources to the kind of things which we are discussing today.
I hope that in reply to the debate the Under-Secretary will indicate what new steps have been taken to enable us to align ourselves with the proposals of de Gaulle, what new initiatives are being considered in order to deal with the increased expenditures in aid to the Medical Research Council, and what steps he may propose in order that we can have an integration of the services that I have mentioned so that we can have the massive amount of support that is necessary to attack this dreadful disease successfully.

3.15 p.m.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Beaney) for raising this subject. It does not need any words from me or anyone else to stress that he has raised a matter of tremendous human importance. As has been said already, the proportion of people dying from cancer in this country in recent years has been increasing. It is a figure now of over 17 per cent.
This is a matter which naturally causes fear and worry to many people. There is a sense of impatience and of frustration at the failure to cope with the causes and to find cures, in the way in which cures have been found in recent years for diseases which have so long defied the medical world and which have been conquered in our time. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth was all the more powerful because of his personal experience as a victim of cancer. Everyone would wish to respect the way in which he put his case. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) also should be complimented on the way he put his case to the House and on the care he had taken in his research into this problem.
I will deal with the points which both my hon. Friends raised. My hon. Friend


the Member for The Hartlepools raised earlier a number of points about the treatment of women, particularly those who have become victims of cancer of the cervix and the uterus. I shall pass his comments on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I cannot give my hon. Friend information now. The subject of the debate is the need for increased Government aid in research and public education in cancer rather than the treatment of it, but the matter which my hon. Friend raised is one for my right hon. Friend and he will take note of what has been said.
I accept the terms of the Motion, but I should make it clear that I accept them in the sense that whereas the last words of the Motion ask for further financial aid and facilities for research, and the Government certainly accept that and our plans involve further finance, this does not necessarily mean that we can go all the way with the points raised by my hon. Friends. In particular, when we talk about extra finance, we do not mean that we see in the foreseeable future that public money should supersede contributions made by voluntary funds. But we see the need for an increasing amount being spent from public funds and in that sense I accept the words of the Motion.
I should like to make absolutely clear, as I did at Question Time quite recently, that the Medical Research Council has not been hampered by any lack of funds for research into any proposal which has commended itself to the Council. It would have been a paradox if this had been so at a time when such a great contribution is made by voluntary fundraising in addition to the amount spent from public funds. As to the extent to which contributions from public money have been increasing in this field, in 1950–51 the total amount spent on cancer research from Exchequer funds was £157,000. It has risen over the years since then, reaching about the half-million mark in 1958, and, in the financial year which ended the day before yesterday, it exceeded a total of £1 million.
In the next financial year, the Medical Research Council will be receiving a considerable increase in its recurrent grant for research work of all kinds. The Council itself, in the light of priorities, will decide the precise amount which goes on cancer research as distinct from other

kinds of research, so I cannot give a specific figure for cancer research in the next financial year. However, for the total research effort I can give these figures. The M.R.C. grant for the year which has just ended was originally £7,883,000, there was a Supplementary Estimate during the year, and the total came to £8,151,000 for medical research during that year. This is to be increased in the next financial year to £9,584,000, in other words, from just over £8 million to about £9½ million, a considerable increase, having regard to the economic situation confronting the country, in the money to be spent on medical research generally in the 12 months ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools is quite right to say that the money spent on cancer research is spent in a number of different ways through a number of different institutions. There is a strong case for saying that this research should be diversified. Work going on in different universities, research centres and hospitals can have value simply because it is done by small, intimate teams, not in one vast institution. But, of course, it is the job of the Medical Research Council to co-ordinate the effort, and this it is concerned to do.
The money the Council is spending at the moment is disbursed in this way. It makes block grants to four major institutions, to the Institute of Cancer Research in London, to the Cancer Research Department of the Royal Beatson Memorial Hospital in Glasgow, to the Christie Hospital and Holt Radium Institute in Manchester, and to the Strangeways Laboratory in Cambridge. In addition, the Medical Research Council has about 20 research establishments of its own which are doing work directly under the Council's control, notably the National Institute of Medical Research at Mill Hill. Because it is doing part of the work directly as well as financing other work, the M.R.C. is in a very strong position to co-ordinate the whole effort.
There is a good deal being done in the universities and teaching hospitals, partly with funds provided by the Medical Research Council, partly with funds provided by the University Grants Committee as part of its normal financing of teaching institutions. In addition, there


is the research carried on in hospitals where the main task is the treatment of patients but where there is also a research element, and this is financed through the National Health Service.
In other words, the total amount being spent on cancer research is a good deal more than the £1 million to which I referred earlier, and, in the final analysis, it is difficult to say precisely what the sum is because it shades off into other related work.
A good deal of work is going on directed not specifically to cancer but to more general problems which can be of great importance in the battle against cancer. I am thinking particularly of basic biological research, research into the nature of living matter, into the processes which go on within living cells and so on, all of which can be of great indirect value. Researches in genetics, in virology and other subjects also are relevant here and make important contributions.
We have now reached the frustrating stage—this, I suspect is why a good deal of frustration was expressed by my hon. Friends in their speeches—where medical progress has reached the point of curing a large number of illnesses which baffled previous generations but the remaining illnesses present increasingly difficult problems. Answers to many of the problems in cancer and in some other conditions do not necessarily depend now on a frontal attack on the particular disease but, rather, on a general advance in our knowledge of human biology which can then, we hope, be related, in ways which we do not yet quite recognise, to the problem of the disease itself.
This rate of progress obviously depends partly on resources, but here I repeat the assurance that at this stage no worthwhile project which the Medical Research Council recognises as of medical value is being held up through lack of funds. This is where I would take a slightly different line from my two hon. Friends who have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth spoke of doubling or trebling the amount of money available. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools wanted to adopt the idea of ½ per cent. of the national defence budget being devoted

to this subject. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. The increase in funds available would not produce a comparable advance, or necessarily any material or significant advance, in the rate of research work and, therefore, in the treatment of cancer. If it were so, our solution to this terrible problem would be relatively easy. Unfortunately, it is not so. All the scientific advice available to the Government leads to that conclusion.
If I may paraphrase this in layman's language, having tried to understand it, but being very much an amateur, the view is that the approach to this subject at the moment and in the years immediately ahead must be what the, doctors call "a multi-disciplinary approach". They must attack cancer—they have been trying to do so over the last few years—by a number of different approaches simultaneously. One approach is that of chemo-therapy, of trying to discover new ways in which drugs can be used for this treatment. Here we have had in recent years a certain amount of progress, limited progress but progress which has been beneficial to large numbers of patients who have been cured in cases where the disease has been diagnosed early enough but who would not have been cured some years ago.
There is another line of attack into the causes of cancer, which are very baffling and complicated, in trying to identify the cancer-producing agents which lead to the disease. Here a good deal of research in industry has, I understand, been of considerable value. There are certain kinds of cancer which can be identified with certain industrial processes. Hon. Members will know that certain types of cancer are scheduled as industrial diseases under the Industrial Diseases Act. There the research has led to the identification of agents which cause cancer, research which has been of value outside the immediate field concerned.
A very interesting development in recent years has been the discovery that certain viruses can cause cancer, something which was unsuspected until comparatively recent years.
Another line of attack is in the field of immunology, the extent to which perhaps the growth of tumours can be


attacked by immunising the people concerned. This is another aspect on which it is hoped to make progress, but at the moment, I understand, the matter is at an elementary stage.
Again, there is the relationship of cancer with the environment. In this sense, the relationship of smoking with lung cancer has been the subject not merely of research but of a great deal of controversy and discussion in recent years. Studies are going on at the moment in relation to gastric cancer and leukaemia to discover whether there are environmental causes or personal habits which can have a relationship of the same kind.
In all this effort, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the research is being financed partly by Exchequer funds and partly by voluntary funds. The voluntary money, it is true, amounts to larger totals than the public money. The two biggest organisations in this field are the British Empire Cancer Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Reasearch Fund, both of which, according to the latest figures that I have available, are able to provide a greater amount of finance than the Exchequer for research in this field. The British Empire Cancer Campaign spent more than £1,300,000 in 1963 and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund spent £1,200,000 in the financial year 1962–63. I should point out that these organisations in practice work very closely with the Medical Research Council to secure the most effective deployment of the resources.
But the question that I have to face up to, and the question which previous Governments have had to face up to, is whether or not Government money should supersede the voluntary money, whether there should be so much extra Government money put into this that the voluntary fund-raising bodies become redundant. This is a matter which people have discussed over a period. There are two main reasons why we do not think this would be the right course to adopt. One is simply that there really are a large number of people who would like to make a voluntary contribution. In this field, as in others, besides the expenditure of the money taken compulsorily from all citizens, there ought to be scope for those who choose voluntarily to contribute to the effort by giving something

extra. There are very often people with personal family reasons for wanting to make a contribution to the fight against cancer, people who welcome this opportunity.
The second reason is one connected with the scientific aspects of the fight against the disease. The point is that here we are in a field which is so baffling and complicated that professional opinions will often differ as to the merits of different lines of research. The Medical Research Council is spending taxpayers' money and, therefore, it has a duty to decide in each case that the research which it is going to finance, very often at very great expense, has, in its professional view, a reasonable chance of succeeding. It does not mean that it is not able to take certain risks. Of course it ought to take certain risks in such a field. Nevertheless, it has a responsibility to the taxpayer and it has to take that into account.
But, of course, the official bodies, as we would all recognise, do not have a monopoly of wisdom, and it may well be that they might want to turn down an idea which seemed unlikely to succeed but might have merits in it. This, of course, is precisely the kind of research which could and should be financed by voluntary funds and for which the money being committed is not the money taken compulsorily from all citizens, but that given voluntarily.
This is a very good thing in a matter like this because of its complications, for sometimes what might be called offbeat ideas can be developed and financed in a way which would not be justified when the taxpayers' money was involved.
The basic point is that we are at the stage and for some time have been at the stage when the Medical Research Council is able to assure us that no project which is worth while from a medical point of view is being held up for lack of funds. When I say "lack of funds" I appreciate that they are funds which are partly public money and partly money raised on a voluntary basis. It could be argued that all of it should be public money and I hope that I have dealt with that argument, but it is not the position that an increased amount of public money at this stage would of itself have the results


which some people hope that it would have in dealing with the disease.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that, in opening clinics without financial assistance from the Government, Manchester took an important step forward in the treatment of cervical cancer, and that it is felt by many people that, with our increased knowledge about curing certain forms of cancer, this sort of development is not sufficiently used. Before he leaves the subject of finance, I wonder whether he could say what might be done to see that there are clinics in every locality where they are needed to deal with cervical cancer. Some people feel—they may be wrong—that there has not been the progress in this respect which there should have been because of the shortage of funds. That would be regrettable if it were true.

Mr. Prentice: A similar point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools and I explained then that I would reply on the Motion which was drafted in terms of research into cancer and public education about it rather than the treatment of cancer, which raises many other issues, primarily for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I will draw the attention of the Minister of Health to what has been said, but at the moment I am not equipped to deal with it in detail. Obviously, treatment and research overlap in this respect, but I am dealing specifically with the financing of research rather than the provision of clinics whose main job is clearly treatment, although there is a research result from what is done in clinics.
I want briefly to mention the international agency for research on cancer which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools. As we were able to announce at Question Time on 4th February and again on 30th March, the Government are supporting the concept of establishing an international agency of this kind. This was originally suggested by the French Government and there has now been agreement among France, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the United States to sponsor a resolution at the World Health Assembly, which is due to meet in May.
The resolution will be to establish, under the auspices of W.H.O., this new international agency for research into cancer. The purpose is not to duplicate national efforts already taking place, but to co-rdinate them and to provide any service which will be of international value. For example, there will be considerable value in co-ordinating research into problems connected with environment and incidence of cancer in many countries, and this project has the Government's wholehearted support.
Both my hon. Friends spoke about the public education aspects of this problem and made a powerful plea for a more positive policy from the Government in this connection. I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is now considering this problem and has a Standing Advisory Committee on Cancer and Radiotherapy which is considering it, and I hope that he will be able to make a pronouncement before very much longer.
As the House will know, this is a matter on which the medical profession has had divided views for a long time. On the one hand, it has been argued that public education and the dissemination of information about cancer and its symptoms would lead patients to report to their doctors earlier, which would lead to earlier diagnosis and therefore the treatment in time which is so tragically often not possible if people report to their doctors too late. On the other hand, it has been argued by other doctors that this would lead to unnecessary anxiety and that people would worry about the wrong set of symptoms and that such a policy would do more harm than good.
I think that it is fair to say that in recent years the balance of the argument has shifted in favour of public education. This led the Ministry of Health in 1963 to encourage a number of larger local authorities to initiate local schemes of education in connection with cancer, regarding this as a pilot project for a possible wider scheme. A number of local authorities have been doing that, and some voluntary bodies have been doing it in co-operation with local authorities. The biggest is in South Lancashire—the education project of the Manchester Committee on Cancer—which covers in South Lancashire and in Cheshire an area with


about 2,500,000 people. It has been engaged in a public education campaign for some years now with results reported to the Ministry of Health, results which have been successful.
This led in April 1964 to some comments which have already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth. He quoted from a report on health education by the Joint Committee on Health Education under the chairmanship of Lord Cohen. I need not repeat the quotation, but the gist of it was that the time had been reached for a national effort on public education in this matter. This is the matter being studied in the Ministry of Health by the Standing Advisory Committee, and my right hon. Friend will hope to tell the House about that in due course.
There is the very important public education campaign being conducted at the moment about the risks of excessive cigarette smoking. This is something which has been given new impetus in recent months by the Government. There has been the decision to ban cigarette advertising on television. New short television films have been produced which are now being shown on B.B.C. and occasionally on I.T.V. warning about the danger of excessive smoking. We have had the very effective poster campaign. Hon. Members will have seen the new very striking posters recently about the dangers of excessive smoking.
As I have a responsibility for schools, may I say that a lot of teachers have felt for a long time that they have been lectured by my Department, by local authorities and others to warn their pupils about the danger of excessive smoking. Many of them have been doing this conscientiously, but have felt that for far too long their efforts have been undermined by the tenor of public advertisement in this field. I hope that the steps taken recently will give them some encouragement, because what we have to do is to warn young people of the dangers of smoking. It it not sufficient merely for teachers to give them a lecture. The whole of society must be aware that it must not undermine this lesson.
May I conclude by once more thanking my hon. Friend the Member for

Hemsworth for raising this subject. This is a very baffling, very complicated and very difficult subject in which we are engaged against a terrible scourge which has always afflicted mankind but which is not yielding to the progress of medical science in the way that other illnesses have done. However, the Government's resources are engaged in this struggle and will be engaged to a greater extent. We must all hope and do everything that we can to promote the possibility of making a breakthrough in the not too distant future.

3.42 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I had not intended to intervene in the debate and I shall do so for only a few minutes. However, I wish to support the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Beaney) in bringing the Motion before the House, particularly because he and the Government spokesman and other hon. Members have brought this subject out into the light of day. This is tremendously important.
We have all been distressed at the rather coy way in which cancer has been referred to in the past. It has been cloaked under various other terms which have disguised its severity. It is all to the good that we are now talking about cancer, talking to the public about it, and demanding more education. I am entirely in agreement with the view that the more we can make the facts known to people and urge them to go for early diagnosis, the better it is for everybody.
As cancer may take a very long time to develop—up to as much as 30 years—it is essential that we give publicity to the need for early diagnosis, particularly in two sections of the community. The first is among women, who are particularly at risk, not only from cervical cancer, but from cancer of the breast and other parts of the body and who, very often, because as mothers of families they are busy and occupied with the needs of their family, do not pay enough attention to themselves when they have symptoms. The second section is in industry. In many parts of industry there is a risk to which, unfortunately, not sufficient attention has been paid, partly from fear, which one


understands, on the part of manufacturers that if the risk is publicised workers may not want to go into that industry. We have reached the point when we cannot afford to have that any longer, and we must go ahead with education in this respect.
I am concerned about the question of research. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who replied for the Government, made the point that the Medical Research Council and other medical advisers may not regard the examination of some of the off-beat cures or methods of diagnosis as being suitable for the expenditure of public money. My hon. Friend made the point that voluntary contributions can be used for some of these schemes. I have, however, been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health about a scheme which has caused me some disquiet, for the following reason.
An eminent doctor, who believes that he has discovered a method of diagnosing cancer, wanted to carry out research into this method. To do so, he needed funds. He advertised his scheme and was immediately struck off the Medical Register. Now, because he is not on the Register, he cannot have access to a doctor's patients and he cannot carry out the research that he wants to undertake. This seems to me to be completely wrong.
That man happens to be a doctor. There are others who are not doctors but who probably have views and knowledge about the subject which might represent a breakthrough. Hon. Members who have spoken have indicated that the field is so difficult and complex that we cannot afford to ignore any possible breakthrough from any source.
This type of case is not approved by the Medical Research Council and does not fit into any of the usual categories, but if, with the specialist advice available to the Government and with the know-

ledge that they can obtain, they could see a glimmer of hope in such a scheme, I suggest that they could in some way provide money or the facilities to enable the person concerned to obtain funds from voluntary sources without incurring professional disapproval.
The difficulty is a real one, because there must be many other people in the category which I have mentioned and I am certain that the public, many of whom have suffered losses in their own families and have experienced unspeakable tragedies, are not prepared to see any possible line of research overlooked and not investigated because of this kind of red tape and restrictive practices within the medical profession. That is my fear. I ask my hon. Friend to consider it and see whether there is any way of overcoming the difficulty by providing either Government funds or a means of securing agreement about this with the medical profession.
There are many other things that I should like to say, but time is short and another important debate is to follow to which we must give short attention. I welcome very much what has been said today. I hope that, although the debate has been only a short one, the Government will pay attention to the need for providing research funds and also a nation-wide screening service on cervical cancer which is increasingly being demanded and screening services wherever there is an industrial, atmospheric or any other local risk which it is particularly necessary to investigate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the valuable work of Governmental and voluntary agencies in promoting research into the causes of and cure for cancer, but, in view of the heavy toll on human life and happiness caused by this disease, urges Her Majesty's Government still further to increase financial aid to, and facilities for, research in this field.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Park: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the widespread concern which has arisen as a result of the increase in juvenile delinquency, urges Her Majesty's Government to assist and encourage the widest possible research into both its causes and its prevention.
No one can doubt that juvenile delinquency is one of the major social problems which confront us today. A great deal of time and effort have been devoted to attempting to reduce its incidence, but, despite all these efforts, the figures for juvenile crime increase, and it is clear that we are confronted here with a problem which has not yet been solved. It may well be that we have failed because we have concentrated on shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, because we have concentrated on considering methods of punishment after the offence has been committed, and that we would be rewarded if we were, instead, to devote more study to the reasons which prompt people to become juvenile delinquents and to the ways of preventing such a tendency from developing.
I do not believe that there is any one simple or single prescription for the prevention of juvenile crime. The causes may lie in some cases in social factors. We know, for instance, that juvenile crime is largely an urban problem. It is a big city problem, and the vast majority of those prosecuted come from lower income families living in poor and overcrowded housing conditions, and educated in overcrowded classes and out-of-date school buildings. We know, too, that in those households where there is a high proportion of mental illness, where there are higher than average figures for cruelty and child neglect, the statistics of juvenile crime are likely to be higher as well.
Researches have shown us that in such areas a sub-culture evolves with its own standards, customs and attitudes, which may often diverge very sharply from those of society as a whole. Among such groups, and particularly among the young people, the borderline between anti-social action and criminal offence is not so clearly drawn as it is for the rest

of the population. Ways of showing daring or skill in order to earn the prestige of the other members of the group may begin with trespassing on private land or lorry hopping, and gradually degenerate into petty larceny, receiving, and breaking and entering. The young people concerned—and this is an important point—are not psychological misfits; they are conforming to the standards of the society in which they live, no less than those who have the fortune to be born in a different strata of society conform to theirs, and often receive our approval for it.
Looked at from this aspect—and I stress that I do not believe that social factors are the only factors involved in juvenile crime—our problem is an educational rather than a criminal one. The society which was responsible for the creation of these social conditions must take responsibility for eradicating them.
The Children and Young Persons' Act of 1963 lays on local authorities the duty of providing advice, guidance, and assistance to families in order to reduce the need for children to be taken into the care of the local authority. Why should not this excellent principle be extended to cover those who are potential or actual delinquents? Is it always easy to determine where the need for care and protection ends, and criminal offence begins? The social weakness which creates the former is all too often the progenitor of the latter as well. Why should not both be treated in the same way?
I suggest that it might well benefit us if we were to look again at the Report of the Kilbranden Committee on the future of young persons courts in Scotland. I believe that that Report contains lessons for England as well. It is proposed there to treat juvenile crime by taking juvenile courts out of the criminal jurisdiction altogether and setting up in their place panels of citizens to arrange for the treatment of all children under school leaving age whose actions make it necessary, and establishing a new department of social education within the present educational system which could co-ordinate the various services to help young persons, ranging from approved schools to existing local authority special care, and from residential training away from home to regular supervision within the community.
Is not there a case for combining all the local authority humanitarian services into a comprehensive single family service along the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Longford, has proposed? At the moment the different local authority departments are all too often ill co-ordinated, and a comprehensive family service would surely enable a big step forward to be made both towards eradicating many of the social evils to which I have referred and towards dealing with juvenile delinquency at its source as well.
Time does not allow me to develop this theme. I believe that there is a great need for research into the causes of juvenile delinquency, and from the discovery of those causes we can move on towards its prevention. This is the positive approach which I am sure the Government are already adopting, and my purpose in raising this matter today is to encourage the Government in their efforts in this direction so that we can at last move towards a solution of one of the major social problems of the second half of this century.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the widespread concern which has arisen as a result of the increase in juvenile delinquency, urges Her Majesty's Government to assist and encourage the widest possible research into both its causes and its prevention.

Orders of the Day — FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 30th April.

Orders of the Day — LABELLING OF FOOD BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 30th April.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF DEER BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (FURTHER PROVISIONS BILL)

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — PLUMBERS (REGISTRATION) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CLIENTS' MONEY (ACCOUNTS) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — LICENSED BETTING OFFICES (RESTRICTION) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT 1923 (AMEND MENT) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOT LAND) ACT 1947 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EMOLUMENTS OF TOP MANAGE MENT (DISCLOSURE AND REGULATION) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [26th February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACT 1946 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (EXTENSION OF VOTING FACILI TIES) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [12th February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CARAVAN SITES (No. 2) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — RATING (UNOCCUPIED HEREDITAMENTS) BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE BUYERS PROTECTION BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading adjourned till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — WOOLWICH ARSENAL SITE (REDEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. George Rogers.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment today the question of the future development of the Royal Arsenal site. Perhaps it is an ironic coincidence that we should be coming at this stage to the end of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich at the same time as the Borough of Woolwich has been extinguished. We are now part of the new Greater London Borough of Greenwich. To the people of Woolwich it is a source of great regret that the Royal Ordnance Factory has come to an end. It would be out of order for me to raise that question today, because it is not the responsibility of the Minister who will answer the debate. The decision has been taken by the Government and I am assured that there is nothing we can do which will change that decision.
The result of this decision is that a very large amount of land is now available for redevelopment. Perhaps I might say, in parenthesis, that a great part of this land has been available for redevelopment for years. Many hundreds of acres have been lying idle for nearly ten years which could have been made available for housing and other social developments, but at least Her Majesty's Government have now taken this decision.
I want to discuss the form which the new development will take, and whether this decision is simply to be for building houses. I am very glad to note that Her Majesty's Government have already said that the development will be along the lines of a new town development. Obviously, it is not a new town in the sense that it is an appendage of London, but it will take the form of a new town development in the sense that there will not only be building of houses. Part of the area will be earmarked for industry, and there will be such social development as shops. What the people would like to see is that this development is made an integral part of the existing borough. We do not want to see a new town developed on the north-east of the borough and lying outside the borough. We should

like it integrated with the existing redevelopment which is going on already in the old town. I use the word "town" because we who live there speak of the "town" of Woolwich, even though Woolwich has been, for a long time, a Metropolitan borough. Woolwich has had an urban quality all its own.
The old borough of Woolwich started, and the new borough of Greenwich is carrying on with, a redevelopment of the existing town centre. They have imaginative plans. We should like to see the new development on the old Arsenal site integrated with that development. I should like particularly to refer to the development taking place at the Western end. We have been assured by the Department of Defence that, on the land which has been earmarked as borough land at the western end of the site, certain buildings will be preserved for historic reasons. I know that this is not the direct concern of my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will take back to his colleagues who are responsible the feeling of the borough that great thought ought to be given to the question of how the preservation of these buildings will fit in with the plans which the borough has for that new development.
The plans which the borough has already developed are most ambitious. Woolwich has been engaged for the last ten years in rebuilding a Victorian town. I can think of no borough in the country which has embarked on such an ambitious project. Great steps have already been taken at the west end of the borough in St. Mary's and dockyard. It is only fair to say that the borough has had tremendous assistance from the old London County Council in this. We are now engaged on reconstructing the eastern end of the town, in Plumstead, which has a great history and which is adjacent to the Arsenal site. There is a point to which I should like to direct my hon. Friend's attention, and that is that an enclave on the site is to be retained by the War Department. We hope that, when plans are made, the enclave reserve for the War Department will be looked at from the point of view of redevelopment. We do not want to redevelop all around and leave the enclave undeveloped.
The other thing to which I should like to direct my hon. Friend's attention is the


situation in the dockyard. The dockyard is part of the area which is being redeveloped. I know that it is very much in the mind of my hon. Friend that what we have very much in mind in the borough is that the whole of the river front should be opened up. This could be a most exciting prospect for future generations, with the opening up of the River Thames from Greenwich right down the river. I know very well that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a Londoner, and who knows the river far better than I shall ever know it, must share our enthusiasm for this exciting project.
May I say a word of two about industrialised housing? There has been a most interesting development at Morris Walk under the auspices of the L.C.C. We have it in mind that when this new estate is developed industrial housing will provide the bulk of the development. But will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that in the industrialised housing of the future we shall see a much greater variety of design and a much greater use of colour, for example? Far be it from me, as a citizen of Woolwich, to criticise what has taken place in Morris Walk. It is a magnificent scheme. But some of us locally feel that there might be developments there, and some of us have in mind the establishment of a Government factory for industrialised housing. I know that the Government have made one or two statements about this already, but it seems to us that if we are to have a very large development on the Arsenal site, with the adjacent river, with transport facilities already well developed, and with raw materials on the site, we might contemplate some construction work taking place on that site on an industrial basis.
Will my hon. Friend also say a further word or two about organisation? He said something about this in the debate on the Milner Holland Report. We know that a steering committee is to be set up. We should particularly like to see the development going on not just under the auspices of G.L.C. but under the auspices of a consortium representing the Greater London Council and also representing the local boroughs—not only our own borough but other

boroughs which have an interest in this development.
We do not want to be parochial about this. The people of Woolwich have welcomed in the past citizens from many other parts of the country, not only from other parts of London. Were that not so, I should not be the Member for Woolwich, West. When this development takes place, we shall welcome many thousands of Londoners, not only from Bermondsey, Lambeth and Southwark but from other parts of London, too. We know that during the last ten years, with the new Abbey Wood Estate, we have had very fine people coming into Woolwich and already playing a useful part in the life of the borough. We want to see an agreed plan of development going forward in which advantage can be taken of local interests and local enthusiasms.
May I in the last few minutes say a word about industrial development? My hon. Friend knows very well that I have been active in trying to persuade the Government to consider the placing of Government factories on the site, because part of the site will be devoted to industrial development. He also knows very well that the Government do not share this view, on the grounds of national economic policy. They feel that if there is to be a Government factory it ought to be in a place where unemployment is a much greater problem than it is in the South-East. But we should like to hear some comments from him about the re-location of industry. I am assured that factories will be located on the Arsenal site which have come from other parts of south-east London. We have one or two factories in Woolwich itself which may be re-located. May we have an assurance that they will be re-located on the Arsenal site?
Are some of the older factories in places like Lambeth and Southwark to be relegated further down the river, perhaps in Woolwich? What we are concerned with is that the thousands of people who come to live in Woolwich shall not have to be commuters. We do not want to see the already overloaded transport of south-east London loaded still more with the 50,000 or so people who live there trying to struggle out of the borough in order to work somewhere


else. These are matters which I hope will be in the mind of my hon. Friend.
The project which is being embarked upon here is one of the most exciting projects in the history of London. We have an opportunity here of recreating a modern 20th century town in an old area—something which has not been done anywhere else—a new town built from the grass roots up which will embrace a very old-established borough.
I said earlier that we are now part of the Greater London Borough of Greenwich. It is nice to recall that a gentleman who graced this Chamber for many years was once the Member of Parliament for Greenwich. I refer, of course, to William Gladstone. He was one of the outstanding representatives of Greenwich. Those of us who come from Woolwich feel no hardship at having the new borough christened Greenwich because in those days Woolwich was, in fact, represented by William Ewart Gladstone as part of Greenwich, and there is no heart-burning on that score.
We hope that in this new project the new borough will be written down in history as a magnificent planning achievement, and I hope that in listening to my hon. Friend I will recapture some of the excitement which is felt in our locality at this prospect.

4.17 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has been a Member of this House for only about five months, but already in that short time he has made his mark. I should like to say to him, speaking as a fellow Londoner, that I think he is a very worthy representative of this extremely well-known area of London. I thought it was inevitable that he would be raising very shortly with me the question of this enormous development which is going to take place in the part of Woolwich which he represents.
The availability of this great windfall site within London presents an unprecedented opportunity and one unlikely ever to recur. I know that the Greater London Council looks forward to the opportunity of an exciting new develop-

ment on the scale of a new town within London itself. Taking into account land which the Council inherits from the London County Council on Erith Marshes and elsewhere, it will have available for development about 1,340 acres. After providing for all the necessary services which such a great community will need, the Greater London Council estimates that it can provide homes for some 65,000 people. The present intention is that this land should be used as far as possible for rehousing people from clearance and redevelopment areas in South and South-East London; although, in view of the general housing need in London, the Greater London Council may find it necessary to take in a wider catchment area.
The Greater London Council's officers and those of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence are already in negotiation about the transfer of land from Government ownership to the G.L.C. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that good progress is being made with these negotiations, and the G.L.C. does not at present see any prospect of difficulty in agreeing a phased programme for the release of the land to fit in with the stages of its own development.
This development cannot be merely an overgrown housing estate. The aim is to prepare a comprehensive scheme providing a balanced form of development with shops, social facilities and an appropriate amount of local employment.
There are many interlinking problems which such a comprehensive scheme must raise. In particular, the redevelopment of such a large area obviously raises important problems of employment and communications. I understand from the G.L.C. that its first estimate is that, when this area is fully developed, 30,000 of the 65,000 residents would be in employment. As a broad generalisation, it might be assumed that about one-third of these would work in the Woolwich area, and perhaps another one-third in neighbouring centres. Experience in other parts of London suggests that a considerable number of the remainder would travel to work in central London unless ways could be found of preventing this.
The G.L.C. is discussing with Government Departments the possibility of moving industry from central London without increasing the total level of


employment in Greater London, and also whether any special case could be made for offices in this area.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for trying to restrain employment in the south-east and to encourage firms to set up in the development districts where there is an over-riding need for greater opportunities for employment. But my right hon. Friend does not reject out of hand the possibility of allowing some industrial development at Woolwich. He will continue to approve there a limited number of suitable projects with a tie to the locality or where London firms have been planned out of their present sites; provided he is fully satisfied, on the stricter tests now being applied by the Government in the congested areas, that these projects cannot go to a development district. As regards offices, the control will have to be applied stringently in the G.L.C. area if it is to achieve its object of relieving congestion in London, but it will still be possible to make out a case to my right hon. Friend for office development in this area.
The balance between housing and employment at Woolwich must be related to the nature and extent of the new demands on transport facilities. The G.L.C., British Rail, London Transport and my right hon Friend the Minister of Transport are all fully aware of the immense problems involved. British Rail and London Transport have already been brought into discussions with the G.L.C. and further detailed talks will start as soon as possible as to the effect on their services—both on the local services from the needs for local traffic of such a large development and also from the need of additional travel to Central London.
Within a wider framework, the Passenger Transport Planning Committee for London set up by British Railways and London Transport is considering plans for the co-ordinated development of public passenger services as a whole in the London area. This will take account of the proposed developments in Woolwich. For the long-term, an intensive study is being made in the London Transportation Study of the overall transport problems in the London conurbation. The object of this study is to develop long-term comprehensive proposals for meeting the future demand

for transport in London in the most practical and economic way. Again, this study will take into account the effects of possible developments such as those at Woolwich Arsenal.
As regards the layout of the new development itself, the G.L.C. has set up a special planning team. This has been working on an overall plan for the development to achieve an outstanding example of post-Buchanan urban development. The plan will include provision for a continuous system of pedestrian routes separate from the main road system and linking all the main community facilities. Another important objective—and my hon. Friend will be delighted to hear this—will be to provide for maximum public use of the long river frontage, including riverside walks and parks which could be of great value to the people of London generally.
To ensure a properly balanced community, the G.L.C. envisages that not all the houses should be provided by the local authorities. As a first instalment, and because of the urgency of the housing needs of London's housing, development on Stage I of about 1,000 dwellings can be started in the near future. Work is now in hand on the detailed plans for this.
I have spoken so far of the Greater London Council.
I understand that the G.L.C. is already in informal contact with the new Greater London Boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley and is bringing these boroughs into the discussions. The Greater London Council assures me that it will be maintaining close co-operation with the two boroughs, and I understand that it will begin talks with them as soon as possible on the problems involved, on the best means of co-operation, on the allocation of housing, and on the relationship of the new township to their new town centres. The Greater London Council will also be co-operating with the education authorities regarding schools and all the organisations concerned with the medical and social services.
With a development on this scale which raises so many interlinked problems, co-operation is the key word for success. To facilitate this co-operation and to try to iron out the problems as they arise there is already a liaison group of officials representing all the main Government


Departments concerned—Defence, Economic Affairs, Trade, Labour, Transport, Public Building and Works—under the chairmanship of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. This liaison group of officials has already met the officers of the Greater London Council, of British Railways and of London Transport to discuss common problems. They will continue to meet as necessary to ensure that the different aspects of development, housing, employment, transport, and so on, are kept in step. No doubt, they will also keep in touch with the boroughs concerned, which have important responsibilities especially in education, health and welfare for the new development.
My hon. Friend asked me a specific question about industrialised building, variety, colour and so on. A great deal of research has already been done by the National Building Agency. I am certain that there will be industrialised building on this site. How much, and of exactly what sort, I cannot say today, but I should regard this as a wonderful opportunity for system building, and I can only say, whatever my hon. Friend's opinion may be, that it is my judgment that some of the industrialised building which I have seen is as good as, if not better than, much traditional building. Already, about 380 systems of industrialised building have been broken down to about 20 systems, which, I should imagine, will be considered when we start to build on the Woolwich site itself.
A word now about the town development of Woolwich, because I know how concerned Woolwich is. The fear of both Woolwich and Erith is that a big shopping and commercial town centre will be built in the middle of the new development which will compete unfairly with their town centres at the western and eastern extremities of the new development. I know that Woolwich has big plans for redeveloping its town centre, including offices, and Erith has town centre proposals which have recently been the subject of a public local inquiry. I cannot say anything about the public local inquiry. The report will come to my Ministry, and, of course, we all go very judicial on matters of this kind. We must wait and see what proposals the Greater London Council makes in its own plan, but it is likely, I think, that it will

not seek to build up a great town centre of the kind which Woolwich and Erith fear. It might be much more sensible to provide the estate with a series of local neighbourhood centres, while building on what already exists in Woolwich and Erith, both of which badly need an injection of fresh life.
Finally, on the question of land being retained in public ownership, about 150 acres are being retained in two enclaves for Government purposes; about 58 acres of this are centred around the R.O.F. site at the western end, and about 84 acres are occupied by the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment. There will also be a small area to be used by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. The majority of Government activities at the Arsenal, apart from the Royal Ordnance factory, cannot satisfactorily be removed elsewhere and will remain, though noisy activities, such as ranges and so on, will be moved to allow satisfactory residential development. Certain other Government establishments of the Ministries of Defence and of Public Building and Works will also be accommodated in the Arsenal. Concentrating these Government activities in the Arsenal will help to clear Kidbrooke for housing, and will later enable other sites—Red Barracks and Woolwich Dockyard—to be released for housing.
I share with my hon. Friend the hope that this scheme at Woolwich, which is probably the last chance we shall ever have to build on a site of this kind inside London, will be pressed to its full advantage. I am convinced, as a result of my contacts with all those with whom I have spoken in the Greater London Council and among the officers of my own Department, that the chance will not be missed. I echo what my hon. Friend said. We must make sure that future generations will be able to say that, whatever else was done in this century, this development at Woolwich was very well done.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that the House is very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of this exciting and imaginative scheme. It was difficult to grasp the figures as he gave them, but I believe that he
mentioned


a figure of 65,000 people to be accommodated there. I suppose that means about 25,000 dwellings.
Looking at the acreage, this seems a rather low density. Can the hon. Gentleman state the area which is to be devoted to dwellings and the sort of density to which they will be erected? We want to make the greatest use of the land for housing purposes, and I hope that not too much will be set aside for industrial and commercial purposes, because the Greater London Council area requires housing so very much. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has the density figures with him, or perhaps even the figure of the number of dwellings to be provided.

Mr. Mellish: Off the cuff, I think that the number of dwellings will be about 30,000. I cannot give an idea of the densities. The area will be planned, I believe, with various house-types. I have previously said that I do not want a sea of council flats. I want to see a very diversified form of experiment. I

do not think that the plan is at the stage when densities can come into the argument. The 1,000 houses which we are to begin with will be at the Erith end. When we start building them, it will not interfere with the major plan, which is now being designed.
The hon. Member can be assured that, as I said, what we see here is a chance to build really well, to build for the future. We all know, none better than I, the tremendous demand for housing in London. That is the whole purpose of trying to get this site. But we have to bear in mind the balance. Social amenities are important; and the industrial content is important too. However, I give an assurance that when it comes to densities we shall not ignore the fact that London is crying out for land and that people are crying out for homes. At the end of the day, this is what it is all about.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Five o'clock.